A comparative assessment of ICEIDA’s Rural Development Programmes in Uganda and Malawi with the Millennium Villages Project approach

Report submitted to ICEIDA by

Margaret Wanjiku With contributions from Bernard Olayo, Raffaela Kozar and Glenn Denning

Table of contents Acronyms .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i i i Acknowledgements ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v Executive Summary .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi 1.0 Introduction .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.1 ICEIDA PROJECT OVERVIEW..............................................................................................................................1 1.2 METHODOLOGY AND APPROACH SCOPE...............................................................................................................2

2.0 Conceptual framework .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Millennium Development Goals...........................................................................................................................4 Millennium Villages Project ................................................................................................................................4 Development Assistance Committee (DAC) Evaluation Quality Standards ........................................................5 Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness ...............................................................................................................5

3.0 Findings from the comparative review and District appraoches ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.0 Findings from sectoral interventions per country ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

4.1 UGANDA ............................................................................................................................................................12 4.1.0 Introduction...............................................................................................................................................12 4.1.1 Health........................................................................................................................................................13 4.1.2 Fisheries....................................................................................................................................................15 4.1.3 Education ..................................................................................................................................................16 4.1.4 Water and Sanitation ................................................................................................................................18 4.1.6 Untapped Potential ...................................................................................................................................18

4.2 MALAWI ............................................................................................................................................................19 4.2.0 Introduction...............................................................................................................................................19 4.2.1 Health........................................................................................................................................................19 4.2.2 Fisheries....................................................................................................................................................23 4.2.3 Education ..................................................................................................................................................26 4.2.4 Water and Sanitation ................................................................................................................................27 4.2.5 Untapped potential....................................................................................................................................28

4.3 SUSTAINABILITY AND SCALABILITY ..................................................................................................................29 4.4 FINANCING MODALITIES ....................................................................................................................................32 4.5 HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGEMENT AND CAPACITY BUILDING.........................................................................35 4.6 RESULTS MEASUREMENT AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT.........................................................................................37 4.7 INSTITUTIONAL BUILDING, LOCAL GOVERNANCE AND DEVELOPMENT...............................................................39 4.8 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT .............................................................................................................................40

5.0 Recommendations... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 6.0 Annexes .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

6.1 The Terms of Reference for the Review........................................................................................................50 6.2 List of stakeholders consulted ......................................................................................................................55 6.3.1 The information-gathering tool.................................................................................................................57 6.3.2 Venn diagram Protocol.............................................................................................................................60

7. References ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

ii

Acronyms ACAO: Assistant Chief Administrative Officer ACDO: Assistant Community Development Officer ADB: African Development Bank ART: Anti-Retroviral Therapy ALP: Adult Literacy Programme BIDCO: An oil production company registered in Kenya and making an entry into Kalangala BMU: Beach Management Unit BF: Basket Funding BVC: Beach Village Committee CAO: Chief Administrative Officer CDA: Community Development Assistant CDO: Community Development Officer CHW: Community Health Workers CHAM: Christian Health Association of Malawi CIDA: Canadian International Development Agency CSOs: Civil Society Organizations DAC: Development Assistance Committee DCAO: Deputy Chief Administrative Officer DCDO: District Community Development Officer DHMT: District Health Management Team DSEP: District Social Economic Profiles DFID: Department for International Development ESA: East and Southern Africa EU: European Union FALP: Functional Adult Literacy Project FAO: Food and Agricultural Organization FGDs: Focused Group Discussions GDP: Gross Domestic Product GTZ: German Technical Cooperation HC (I, II, III, IV, V): Health Centre levels HIV/AIDS: Human Immuno-Deficiency Virus/Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome HSAs: Health Surveillance Assistants HQ: Headquarters ICEIDA: Icelandic International Development Agency ICT: Information Communication Technology IFAD: International Fund for Agricultural Development IFC: International Finance Cooperation IUDs: Intra Uterine Devices IRS: Indoor Residual Spraying JICA: Japan International Cooperation Agency KAFOPHAN: Kalangala Forum for People Living with HIV/AIDS Network KDDP: Kalangala District Development Plan LC (I, II, III, IV, V): Local council levels MBCH: Monkey Bay Community Hospital MDGs: Millennium Development Goals

iii

MDGR: Millennium Development Goals Report MGDS: Malawi Growth and Development Strategy MK: Malawi Kwacha MOH: Ministry of Health MOWCD: Ministry of Women and Child Development MOAFS: Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries Services M&E: Monitoring and Evaluation MVP: Millennium Villages Project NGO: Non-Governmental Organization NALP: Nankumba Adult Literacy Programme ODA: Official Development Assistance ORS: Oral rehydration salts PBAs: Programme-Based Approaches PC ALP: Project Coordinator Adult Literacy Programme PEAP: Poverty Eradication Action Plan PM: Project Manager PMT: Project Management Team PTAs: Parent- Teacher Associations REFLECT: Regenerated Freirean Literacy through Empowering Community Techniques SWAp: Sector-Wide Approach SOFTDP: Small-scale Offshore Fishery Technology Development Project TA: Traditional Authority TBA: Traditional Birth Attendants TOT: Training of Trainers TOR: Terms of Reference UNCDF: United Nations Capital Development Fund UNDP: United Nations Development Programme UN: United Nations UNICEF: United Nations Children’s Fund VDCs: Village Development Committees VHTs: Village Health Teams WHO: World Health Organization WFP: World Food Programme WB: World Bank

iv

Acknowledgements The authors would like to recognize the support provided by ICEIDA country teams in both Uganda and Malawi, for well-organized itineraries and a warm reception. We thank the government officers from the Uganda Ministry of Local Government and at the Kalangala district government sectoral departments, for taking time to discuss the ICEIDA programme with the team of consultants. Similarly, our gratitude goes to their counterparts in Malawi, especially from the Ministries of Education, Health, Women and Children, Community Development, Fisheries, and Water Supply and Sanitation; sector departmental heads at Mangochi and at Monkey Bay. We thank Drifa Kristjansdottir and her team in Uganda and Stella Samuelsdottir and her colleagues in Malawi for the excellent reception and well coordinated field programme. Gisli Palsson and Augusta Gisladottir in Iceland provided much needed clarification prior to the commencement of the field work, which is appreciated. Further, ICEIDA teams in Iceland, Uganda and Malawi ensured that we received all the relevant documentation even at very short notice. We acknowledge the insights from the ICEIDA project officers in Uganda and Malawi, which added value and direction to the conclusions and observations made in this report. Our colleagues at the Millennium Villages Project, the Earth Institute and The MDG Centre have contributed analytical and content-based contributions to this report. Specifically, we received input from Sharon Gordon on environment and general report outline, Paul Pronyk on monitoring and evaluation, David Koome on MDG financing and MVP costing, and Stephen Ngigi on small-scale irrigation. Patrick Maina was instrumental in reading through the report and providing useful insights on the flow of the arguments. The views in this report are those of the assessment team comprised of the team leader, Margaret Wanjiku, (MDG Centre) Bernard Olayo, (MDG Centre) and Raffaela Kozar (Earth Institute). Glenn Denning reviewed the complete report and provided some key contributions. Much appreciation goes to Glenn Denning for also coordinating the entire process in consultation with Gisli Palsson from ICEIDA, and providing crucial guidance during the fieldwork. The authors are responsible for any errors that might still be outstanding in the report, and not ICEIDA or the organizations they represent.

v

Executive Summary Background Many countries in sub-Saharan Africa have stepped up their efforts to achieve the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). Iceland, as a signatory to the Millennium Declaration in 2000, pledged to work in partnership with developing countries towards the attainment of the MDGs. Malawi and Uganda are two of the countries that ICEIDA, the Icelandic International Development Agency has prioritized and partnered with to achieve MDGs. Both Malawi and Uganda have demonstrated slow progress towards achieving the MDGs. ICEIDA is committed to reorienting its community development projects being implemented in Malawi and Uganda with a greater focus on the MDGs. The Agency has taken interest in the Millennium Villages Project (MVP), a community-based multi-sectoral approach using practical interventions and policies in rural areas. This assessment was commissioned by ICEIDA to understand how its considerable investments in Malawi and Uganda might be strengthened, drawing lessons from the MVP approach. ICEIDA and its national partners have made good progress in the two selected districts in both countries: Mangochi in Malawi and Kalangala in Uganda. The programmes started at different times, targeted different sectors and adopted different approaches. In Malawi, ICEIDA has partnered with the government in the fisheries sector since 1989. Between 2000 and 2006, separate projects formalized through bilateral agreements in the areas of health, fisheries, primary education, adult education, water and sanitation, commenced all responding to pressing community needs. With time the community development approach was adopted. It is noteworthy that all the projects in Malawi were designed in consultation with the respective sectoral Ministries, and are in alignment with the Malawi Growth and Development Strategy. In Uganda, aligning with the Poverty Eradication Action Plan (PEAP), the country’s national development plan, ICEIDA began by collaborating with the Ministry of Gender, Labour and Social Development in 2002. The Uganda programme initially focused on the Functional Adult Literacy Programme (FALP). Later, the Kalangala District Local Government support programme was conceived; this provided expansion to other sectors, specifically focusing on education, health, fisheries, water and sanitation and support to the district administration. This programme is implemented under a bilateral programme and steered jointly with the Ministry of Local Government. Assignment The assignment commenced with an inception meeting in Iceland in September 2008 where the terms of reference were clarified and elaborated. This was followed by field trips to Uganda and Malawi by a team of consultants drawn from The MDG Centre and Earth Institute at Columbia University (New York). A qualitative approach was adopted and an array of methodologies employed. In-depth interviews with key informants from the governments, communities and ICEIDA teams were held. Focused group discussions and extensive document review were employed. A tool detailing a checklist of key information areas was developed by the team, informed by the MVP approach. An

vi

intensive information synthesis and analysis session followed. This report was subjected to expert review and the first draft presented to a team of ICEIDA country directors in Iceland in early January 2009. During the assignment, there have been new developments in Iceland compounded by the global financial crisis. This might impact on the availability of resources for ICEIDA’s projected expansion, as had been explained during the pre-assignment briefing meeting. These realities came to the attention of the consulting team after the assignment was done and thus ICEIDA will need to reflect on the recommendations proposed in this report in light of the emerging financial scenario. Main findings and recommendations 1. Sectoral interventions Strengthen the ‘software’ side of the sectors policy support activities, integration of gender and other cross-cutting themes in the sectors, results measurement and impact assessment, data systems management including gender disaggregation, and documentation. GENDER To ensure a gender-responsive programme, ICEIDA should; Designate a project officer at each project site with responsibility for gender

implementation and monitoring Support ‘quick wins’ in gender such as support to the local governments in designing

and implementing gender-friendly policy reform, and supporting development of gender disaggregated data

Invest in infrastructure that reduces the time burden on women Increase access to sexual and reproductive health rights and services for women

including protection from the risks and impact of HIV/AIDS. HEALTH Improve the outreach programmes to make them more frequent and to cover a bigger

population Improve communities’ participation in matters affecting their health, so that they play

a more active role Improve referral services by providing at least one fully equipped district hospital ICEIDA should strengthen operations of health surveillance assistants, and

community health workers by constructing more outreach shelters and providing supplies

Expand family planning for reducing population growth rate. FISHERIES Employ an entrepreneurial/ value chain approach for the fisheries sector Invest in small-scale mechanized fisheries infrastructure and scientific assessment of

available fish stocks and their economic viability Support value addition to fish catches before sale to boost local enterprise

vii

Support the district government to enforce fishing policies and regulations including a tax review of the sector.

EDUCATION • Pay simultaneous attention to both primary and secondary education • Increase teacher motivation • Develop a partnership approach in the education sector • Explore the school feeding programme modeled on the MVP model and pursue

collaboration with the World Food Programme. WATER AND SANITATION • Apply an integrated approach in water and sanitation sector and focus on irrigation. 2. Institutional building and community development Create greater space for civil society organizations and for private sector engagement Stimulate political will for achieving these goals as a prerequisite for success Carry out qualitative assessments to continuously demonstrate the level

transformation of livelihood within communities Mainstream cross-cutting themes of gender, human rights and social inclusion to

achieve equity and equality that is crucial for cohesion and success. 3. Untapped potential Highlight information technology (ICT) as a critical component of development Take a strategic outlook on productive sectors, to boost sustainability and pursue

greater community empowerment through production and enterprise Develop a business development plan for each district, after establishing the viability

of the various community-level enterprises. 4. Sustainability and scalability Create a partnership approach at district level among development agencies Ensure food security through the local economy in the absence of external support, by

focusing at both the social and productive sectors Begin to focus on sustainable development to ensure that current environmental

practices can sustain the ecosystems for another decade Take measures to control the population explosion Stimulate public-private partnerships at the district level and beyond, to promote

emerging enterprises and to increase investments in both the productive and social sectors

Support the CSOs, in the districts where ICEIDA is operating, to undertake their service delivery and watchdog roles as well as complement ICEIDA’s activities.

5. Human Resources Development Develop a local body of skilled personnel for the key sectors, especially education

and health, through a dedicated scholarship fund Implement Kalangala’s capacity-building plan, with local government taking lead in

the implementation and financial contribution.

viii

Install a comprehensive human resource package, negotiated with the local government, to attract and retain staff.

6. Results measurement Results measurement is one area that is not well developed and should be introduced as a matter of urgency in order not to lose track of gains made. We recommend: Carry out a baseline survey derived from the social economic profiles and other

district-level reviews already present in the districts. Where baselines have already been done, a follow up should be made at later steps in the programmes and necessary adjustments made.

Install a results measurement framework as informed by the output indicators from the project documents

Collaborate with the government monitoring and evaluation personnel at district level Support establishment of a data management system in the districts in partnership

with local government. Designate an officer to ensure continuous results measurement and documentation of

lessons and experiences. 7. Financing the interventions based on MDGs priorities There should be focus on ensuring the centrality of aid coordination, fiscal decentralization and public-private partnerships, at the district government level. • Step up capacity building of local-level institutions founded within the community as

a sustainability strategy • Commence strategic interventions in the productive sectors, to boost local incomes;

this implies that more resources should increasingly be made available for production and creation of local incomes for the communities

• For both Mangochi and Kalangala, greater interventions in the enterprise side of the fisheries sector will increase local revenues

• For Kalangala, the revenue enhancement plan for the local government should be finalized and implemented to boost local revenue collection by the local government.

8. District-level approach ICEIDA should limit current support to the two districts, Kalangala and Mangochi, but expand support to the entire districts, with greater support to the district sectoral headquarters. Already in Kalangala, ICEIDA’s support targets the entire district. The district should thus be the entry point. Report outline The first part of this report details the background to the study, the methodology adopted for the assessment and the conceptual framework. This is followed by a detailed section on main findings from the comparative analysis as well as reflection on ICEIDA’s sectoral interventions. The last part of the report details the recommendations derived from our conclusions, based on the findings.

ix

1.0 Introduction

1.1 ICEIDA Project Overview Iceland, a member of the UN and a signatory to the UN Millennium Declaration is committed to the realization of MDGs by working in partnership with its partner countries. The main focus has been ‘infrastructure development, training and service delivery’ targeting selected poor countries in Africa, Latin America and Asia. Six priority countries are Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Mozambique, Namibia, Uganda and Malawi. Iceland’s official development agency, ICEIDA, is keen to ensure effective interventions in the few partner countries identified as well as sustainability and learning with gradual progress. It is against this backdrop that ICEIDA commissioned a joint team drawn from the Earth Institute of the Columbia University, and the MDG Centre, East and Southern Africa (ESA), regional office in Nairobi, which supports the implementation of the MVP in ESA, to review its projects in Uganda and Malawi, to compare them with the key elements of the MVP, and to make recommendations for improvement in a future outlook report. The MVP seeks to deliver MDGs in poor rural areas through ‘community-based investments and capacity building’. The MVP has adopted holistic sectoral investments and integrated planning, public-private partnership, community-focused development, a shift from subsistence to enterprise-based agriculture and scaling up with an aim of showing proof of the concept in 10 agro-ecological zones in Africa and Asia. ICEIDA aims to develop further its district approach, informed by an analysis of the current approach as compared with that of the MVP approach. This report is derived from the review of the projects in Uganda and Malawi, in Kalangala and Mangochi districts respectively. ICEIDA has obviously made great strides at both sites, especially with infrastructure development. The project approach1 has enabled the interventions in the various sectors to be rapidly visible. The objectives of the consultancy included: • Laying the ground for ICEIDA´s policymaking in the respective districts for the

possible extension of projects and greater harmonization and synergy between them • Identifying and defining areas of action which would provide an opportunity to

establish a more effective development model and could be used as a blueprint by the Agency when designing such projects in the future

• Comparing ICEIDA´s community development approach with the MDG framework to reflect best practices gained through experience of the UN Millennium Village projects.

1 Project approach: refers to a set of separate interventions each focusing on a specific sector.

1

1.2 Methodology, approach and scope The assessment began with an extensive literature review of documentation from both ICEIDA and MVP as well as a review of other development models. Information on the current status of the programme in both countries was done with a sector-by-sector review and a programmatic outlook on cross-cutting factors such as sustainability and scalability was carried out. Other factors assessed included the financing modes, institutional and capacity building as well as results measurement processes. The study has carefully considered gender dimensions of the priorities in the context, and other emerging gender concerns. Aware of the fact that women often bear the brunt of poverty and that interventions at community level, if well targeted, can have a major impact on women and children, the study has made recommendations on how to ensure that gender is mainstreamed in the interventions from design to implementation as well as continuous gendered impact monitoring. The MDG framework, the Millennium Villages Project, aid processes and principles including the Paris Declaration and DAC guidelines were used as a premise for the synthesis and analysis of findings. Conclusions for each of these sectors as well as a highlight of recommendations for each country programme and other major overall recommendations are detailed in this report. A qualitative approach was preferred to quantitative methodologies to allow for a deeper interrogation of the emerging issues from findings. A selection of qualitative tools for all information collection was employed for the review. These include; extensive literature review, focused group discussions (FGDs), in-depth interviews, observations, and discussions with key informants. This variation in tool selection, as well as sequencing enabled triangulation of information gathered, as well as flexibility to modify the tools based on emerging information. In order to gain an understanding of current community participation and ownership in the ICEIDA projects, a Venn diagram activity was facilitated with community members participating in ICEIDA projects (see Appendix 7.3.2 for a detailed protocol for the Venn diagram activity). The objectives of the exercise were to gain a better understanding of which types of local organizations are important to both men and women and why. This mapping of institutions would also demonstrate to the researchers how the community itself is organized within, and how it works with outside organizations or development partners. From this understanding, the team sought to better comprehend the relationships among these different organizations, especially with respect to decision-making power. In Malawi, representatives were members of village-level organizations in each of the sectors that ICEIDA works with, while in Uganda the participants were members of the village BMU and from the general population. The study team was drawn from the MDG Centre, East and Southern Africa, regional office in Nairobi and the Earth Institute. The Earth Institute is directed by Prof. Jeffrey Sachs, the current MDG Advisor to the UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon, and previously the director of the UN Millennium Project, from which the Millennium Villages Project was launched and implemented. The MDG Centre provides technical

2

backstopping to the Millennium Villages as well as a platform for scaling up lessons emerging, and for policy advocacy at the national level in countries where the villages are implemented. A team of four was identified, representing local governance and decentralization, community development, health systems, and research and rural development. The study commenced with an inception meeting in Iceland where the terms of reference for the review were elaborated and clarified. A highlight of comparison with the Millennium Village approach was encouraged with recommendations from the strongest attributes of the villages expected out of the review. This was followed by trips to each of the ICEIDA projects in Uganda and Malawi where interviews were held with ICEIDA central and local government officers, representatives from the partnering community, and other non-governmental stakeholders. A detailed synthesis and analysis of findings was done and this report drafted. This assessment has identified and proposed feasible interventions that can be pursued by ICEIDA to enhance the current programmes in place in the sectors of education, health, fisheries, water and sanitation. In addition a considered selection of other sectors crucial for sustainability and greater impact including agriculture and irrigation, enterprise and ICT development, and results measurement process has been analyzed and included in this report. This report has been subjected to expert review and benefited from inputs from other specialists from both the Earth Institute and the MDG Centre, especially in the area of monitoring and evaluation, water and irrigation systems and environmental management. The draft findings were finally presented to a meeting of country directors in Iceland and the recommendations incorporated in the final report.

3

2.0 Conceptual framework Millennium Development Goals The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) are the world’s time-bound and quantified targets for addressing the many dimensions of poverty including income, hunger, illiteracy, disease and environmental degradation. According to the UN Millennium Project, the MDGs encompass basic human rights that include the right to health, education, shelter and security as expressed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and the UN Millennium Declaration (UN Millennium Project, 2005:1). While many regions in the world have achieved significant social and economic progress, especially East and South Asia, and are thus on track to achieve MDGs, others are hardly likely to meet the MDGs, particularly countries in sub-Saharan Africa where Malawi and Uganda are located. The realization that the goals need to be achieved at the country level, and global commitments and partnerships must be accompanied by local impacts, has led to increased investments at national and sub-national levels among many development partners, ICEIDA included. The MDGs are comprehensive, and Iceland and partner countries are signatories to the Millennium Declaration, thus we have sought to premise our assessment of the projects in Malawi and Uganda on the MDGs’ framework. Further, the MVP upon which a comparative view is sought by ICEIDA is a direct spin-off from the MDGs and the UN Millennium Project, which seek to pragmatically demonstrate how MDGs can be achieved at the community level. In addition, ICEIDA’s intervention in the areas of education, health, water and sanitation, and fisheries, is well anchored within MDGs 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7.

Millennium Villages Project The Millennium Villages Project (MVP) is a logical development and off-shoot of the recommendations of the UN millennium project on how to achieve MDGs. MVs have been championed in at least 14 countries2 in Africa by Prof. Jeffrey Sachs, the special advisor to the UN Secretary-General on MDGs. They show how to achieve MDGs through community-level interventions, and demonstrate the sort of institutional organization, financial investment, local governance arrangements, public-private partnerships, and level of community mobilization that are requisite for the achievement of the MDGs. Interventions recommended by the UN Millennium Project are implemented as an integrated, multi-sectoral and inter-linked set of activities in populations ranging from 5,000 people (one village) to about 30,000 people for a cluster of villages. So far, the MVP has covered 79 villages at 14 sites in at least 10 countries in Africa, but is set to increase to 14 countries. The MVP seeks to pull resources from government, private sector, community and development partners to support local level interventions. Ultimately, it is expected that local governments and other stakeholders will utilize the lessons emerging from MVP, to

2 Kenya, Uganda, Ethiopia, Malawi, Rwanda, Mozambique, Tanzania, Ghana, Senegal, Mali, Nigeria, Liberia, Togo, Madagascar

4

inform MDG scaling-up strategies at both sub-national and national levels. ICEIDA sought a comparison of its projects in Malawi and Uganda with the MVP, in the hope of utilizing the lessons from MVP practice to inform the future outlook of the ICEIDA programme in these two countries, each of which has an MVP site.

Development Assistance Committee (DAC) Evaluation Quality Standards The DAC Evaluation Quality Standards isolate the key pillars needed for the quality evaluation process and results from member-country development partners. While this study is not an evaluation of the ICEIDA projects, the mandate to review the current programmes as compared to the MVP will no doubt utilize some of the parameters set out in the DAC guidelines for project review. While this review did not set out to ascertain results in terms of output, outcome and impact, we realize that to deduce recommendations based on comparison with the MVP and other good practices, it is inevitable to review effectiveness, efficiency and relevance, in order to provide proposals for the future outlook of the programme. Further, Iceland has applied to join DAC as a member, and it is therefore imperative to gauge current progress based on the DAC guidelines. This study has derived three criteria from the DAC guidelines: relevance, efficiency and sustainability. We have added scalability as another criterion derived from the MVP practice.

Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness The Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness, endorsed in March 2005, aimed to improve the quality of aid and its impact on development. It outlines five key principles of effective aid; i. Ownership by receiving countries

ii. Alignment with countries’ strategies, policies and structure iii. Harmonized approach by donors iv. Managing for development results v. Mutual commitments and accountability. Prior to the Paris Declaration, there was widespread frustration in the development context among the donor and receiving countries. This was attributed to many factors but principally: overloading of developing countries with projects and reporting systems; unsuccessful technical assistance targeted at indigenous capacity building; mismatch between aid and development results, and misappropriation of resources. (Wood, B et al, 2008:5) The major frustration was with the lack of tangible development results which was made worse by other emerging factors such as the HIV/AIDS pandemic, global warming concerns, gender inequity and continued abuse of human rights. While several international instruments are now in place to address these shortcomings, we realize that most developing countries, including Uganda and Malawi, continue to be ravaged by the effects of such factors. The team chose to use these factors in our review since ICEIDA’s support to the two districts is founded on bilateral agreements between Iceland and the governments of

5

Uganda and Malawi. We also feel that conceptualizing our findings within the principles of this declaration will anchor ICEIDA’s view of her investments in the two countries from this international development angle for broader positioning purposes. Figure 1: Conceptual framework

ICEIDA Projects in Malawi and Uganda

Scalability, Sustainability, Ownership Institutional and capacity building Financing modalities

MDGs targets and indicators

Paris Declaration & DAC guidelines

MVP and other practices

National Dev plans (PEAP, MGDS)

6

7

3.0 Main findings from the comparative review The district approach It is noted that all three approaches, that of ICEIDA in Uganda and Malawi and that of the MVP, agree and also differ in various ways. While sectoral interventions in all three approaches agree in the areas of education, health, water and sanitation, the main differences are in much greater focus on policy support systems, information management, baseline and results measurements. Entry points also differ with the Malawi programme, focusing on the traditional authority (TA), Uganda at district local government level, and the MVP at the level of a cluster of villages. Target populations also differ as detailed in Figure 2, below. In Malawi, there is clear visibility of sector investments from the separate activities with funds going directly to specific projects, while in Uganda entry through the district level has meant greater support in capacity development and in equipping the district sector officers more than in direct sector-based activities, thus providing less visibility. The MVP on the other hand has intervened with both infrastructure and capacity development at community level, policy alignment at district and national levels, but with the immediate benefits from the project going to a much smaller population at the geographical level. The MVP has pursued three key approaches to ensure sustainability, these are: Community participation, leadership and ownership Local government mandated to provide basic social services, thus integrating them in

implementation, seeking co-funding, and utilizing the lessons for scaling up to other jurisdictions, which gradually builds governance structures for sustainability

Facilitation of pro-poor private sector investment in rural and urban areas. From this we conclude that District level entry as in Kalangala potentially benefits a larger population and facilitates crucial sustainability links; however, the benefits might not trickle down quickly to the community, as has happened with the direct project support at Mangochi. We propose that ICEIDA adopt a district-level entry with selected sectors (Education, Health, Water and Sanitation), but seek to make an impact, within these sectors, at both community and district levels, with a gradual decrease in infrastructural development shifting towards sector policies, information management, alignment with MDG targets and indicators, and strengthening monitoring, evaluation and impact assessments. Simultaneously, a focus on productive sectors in addition to fisheries should be established. Cross-cutting themes, including gender, HIV/AIDS and environmental management, should be integrated in all the selected sectors. The table below summarizes main similarities and differences from the comparison.

Figure 2: Comparative analysis of ICEIDA programmes in Uganda and Malawi and MVP ICEIDA Uganda ICEIDA Malawi MVP Recommended Approach Year of start 2006 for the KDDP

programme and 2002 for the FALP

ICEIDA has been in Malawi since 1989, but the various sectoral projects commenced at different times

2005 (varies according to MV sites)

Target sectors Fisheries; Education; Adult learning; Water and Sanitation Health

Fisheries; Education; Adult learning; Water and Sanitation Health

Agriculture and enterprise development; Education; Gender integration; Health; Environment Infrastructure and ICT development

A focus on the MDG targets and indicators, as well as aligning the local government’s priorities in programming

Coverage population

54,000 110,000 Average of 30,000 for an MV cluster

Areas of focus Entry through the district level government and support to prioritized areas from the District development plan

-Selected sectoral interventions in consultation with respective central ministries and district-level departments -Infrastructure development -Supporting operational costs and emergency response -Capacity building at district and central government level -Provision of scholarships

Integrated multisectoral interventions informed by the MDG framework, and implemented as quick wins to address immediate needs and simultaneous integration of elements of sustainability through focus on enterprise development, community development and capacity building of district-level governance institutions

While the MVP approach described here is encouraged, for its initial focus on the social sectors, then gradual simultaneous focus on productive sectors, innovation identified from emerging opportunities is critical

Entry level District; budget support to district local government through funding of specific sectors

-District level entry, but focus on a Traditional Authority (Nankumba). -There has been support to other projects outside the TA, as well.

Cluster of villages, averaging 6,000 households each

The district is an excellent entry level where the interventions are well grounded within the district’s strategic plans and priorities. Such an entry also calls for support for district-level capacities in planning, data management, monitoring, and impact and results measurement. Entry at community levels allows focusing of limited funds to a smaller population enabling fast tracking of activities and lessons for scaling up

Policy/MDG Fully aligned with the PEAP Fully aligned with the MDGS, and Fully aligned with the MDG The three approaches are well

8

alignment in Uganda and drawn out of the district development plan. KDDP drawn in consultation with MoLG, the mother ministry of the local government. Implemented in partnership with district government

funding priority areas identified in the district development plan. Project documents drawn in consultation with central government ministry officials. Implemented in partnership with district government

framework and implements the priorities highlighted by the UN Millennium Project. Lessons from practice seek to influence sectoral policies at both district and national levels. Implemented in partnership with the district government officials

grounded

Results measurement framework and impact assessment

End and mid-term project evaluation

End and mid-term project evaluation

Rolling baselines, data collection and end and mid-term project evaluation

The MVP model is recommended for ICEIDA.

Integration of the intervention areas

Integrated interventions but focusing on selected social sectors as well as fisheries

Separate sectoral interventions that inevitably integrate at the point of implementation since they target the same community. More focus on the social sectors in addition to fisheries

Integrated investments and interlink at the points of implementation and also as part of the design. A single monitoring framework inform the

Fully integrated interventions that provide a mix of both social priorities (as an immediate response) and a simultaneous and gradual focus on the productive sectors including enterprise development, energy and ICT development.

9

Sustainability and scaling-up (threats)

Infrastructural development and project anchoring in local government is a good start. There is need for skills building and institutionalized capacity building to go hand in hand. Efforts with local government capacity building does not necessarily trickle down to community level. Inadequate focus on productive sectors, as well as strong community-level structures to sustain the impact, is an area for improvement.

There has been much visible infrastructural development across the sectors. Response is quite effective. However there is a need to focus on the sectoral development aspects at the district level. The district will be mandated to sustain the interventions at the end of the projected time frame. There is need to ensure strong sectoral grounding in terms of information management systems, indicator development, results measurement and district-level policy formulation.

Focus on both the productive and social sectors. Strong community grounding of the programme but needs to improve in the local government ownership of interventions.

Strong community-level ownership, and structures for engagement with both the development agency (ICEIDA) and with the local government institutions; strong local government capacities to plan, manage data and information systems, and measure results; strong grounding in sectoral policy. There is a need for greater focus on productive sectors and strong community-level structures to sustain the impact. There is a need for continued documentation of emerging lessons and successes, replete with accompanying data to inform scaling-up processes.

Gender Gender has been identified as a key feature in the project documents but not visibly implemented; no ICEIDA staff specifically designated to ensure gender integration; inadequate gender disaggregated data used in the reporting formats; In Uganda, there have been significant skills building efforts by individual staff within the local government ranks, but there is a need for integration in the implementation process.

Gender is identified as a key feature in the project documents but not visibly implemented in practice; no staff specifically in place to ensure gender integration; inadequate gender disaggregated data used in the reporting formats. There is evidence in Malawi that the ALP has actually contributed to better literacy and awareness of women, as compared to men, and thus increased ability to engage in development processes. Sectoral committees have a gender balance, but women are still not actively drawn out to add their voice. However there is a policy in the

Gender is an integral part of MVP; gender disaggregated data is continuously produced and analyzed; there is specific staff in place to ensure gender integration; need for more resources to go into gender specific interventions for sustenance. Need for more gender-focused staff at implementation level.

Gender should not be adopted as a separate project but an integral component of the identified sectors; need for a designated staff member to do gender audits of both the project documents and at implementation level. Current gender-specific interventions should be scaled up with more resources and a more deliberate focus on gender in planning, programming, implementation and impact monitoring. A checklist should be prepared to ensure that all project officers and managers have integrated gender in their sectors

10

11

ALP for committees to comprise of at least 50% of either gender

Environmental Management

Environmental degradation, though a serious concern in Kalangala currently, is not a core component of the KDDP programme.

Mangochi district is largely devoid of trees and in need of reforestation and sustainable utilization of the natural resources, including irrigation potential. Environmental management is not a core component of the programme. Mangochi has suffered severe deforestation and usually experiences yearly floods as a result.

Environmental concerns integrated into all sectors. Environment is a central concern as a cross-cutting issue, and simple reforestation strategies are in place at every site, school, hospital and at community level. In addition, there are Integrated Soil Fertility Management (ISFM) practices, steps towards improving energy efficiency, starting aquaculture, and work towards all relevant MDG 7 indicators.

Consider applying the MDG 7 indicators, as appropriate into each district programme. Liaise with district teams to report on MDG 7 indicators and improve general awareness. Sound environmental management is key to attainment or provision of clean water, health and food security, and sustainable development

4.0 Findings from sectoral interventions per country

4.1 Uganda

4.1.0 Introduction Uganda continues to demonstrate impressive economic growth with a Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of about 6.5% for the 2006/7 fiscal year. There have been wide-ranging economic reforms in the country aimed at a more liberalized economy and to foster growth of the private sector. The Poverty Eradication Action Plan (PEAP) covers the objectives, strategy and overarching policy framework for achieving this economic development. It is well aligned with the MDGs and is the second generation poverty reduction strategy for the country. Due to sustained efforts, the poverty prevalence has shrunk from 56% in 1992 to 31% in 20063, a significant improvement. However, despite this growth, the headcount poverty rate of 31% is still high, in addition to the low GDP per capita of US $394 in the 2006/7 fiscal year. The population growth of 3.2% further adds pressure to the resource envelope. On the MDG front, Uganda is on course to meet only the universal primary education (MDG 2) and HIV/AIDS reduction (MDG 6 targets 6.A and B.) and is lagging behind in all other goals, especially the reduction of maternal mortality (MDG 5). (UNDP, MGDR 2007) The ICEIDA support to the country is thus much needed, especially the strategic choice of the island district of Kalangala located within Lake Victoria. The district is composed of 84 Islands, 60 of which have human settlements. The low population of approximately 50,000 people is widely scattered among these islands, a small population distribution over a large area, which brings with it significant operational challenges when it comes to delivery of basic services. The KDDP project is planned for 10 years, 2006-2015 and is divided into four phases: the initial phase covers 2006-2008; the implementation phase 2008-2013; phasing out will happen during 2013-2015. The project aims at ensuring responsive leadership by the district government and quality administration and management of public services in partnership with the private sector and civil society organisations. It also aims at ensuring sustainable fisheries with a focus on production, quality and marketing. Social service enhancement, including improved access to quality primary and secondary education, as well as health services, remains a core activity in the KDDP programme. Thus the KDDP is well aligned with the PEAP and the MDGs. The section below highlights findings from the district by the review team, by sector. A summary of main proposals per sector is at the end of each sectoral component.

3 UNDP, 2007. Millennium Development Goals; Uganda Progress Report for 2007. UNDP Uganda. (Pp 3)

12

4.1.1 Health Health Infrastructure and Distribution The closest referral hospital for the district is at Masaka and can only be accessed from Kalangala by a ferry. One end of the district has an easier access to Entebbe hospital, using wooden boats mounted with engines. The district has two Health Centre IVs (HCIV) but they currently do not function as required due to a myriad of factors, listed below; i. High cost of service delivery: Only seven of the 84 islands have health facilities. The

health team therefore has to carry outreach services for the rest of the population. This requires covering long distances using expensive water transport despite the low allocation from Government. ICEIDA supports quarterly outreach services to some of the islands, by providing an operational budget.

ii. Low funding for the district health Sector: Per capita allocation of resources does not favour a hard-to-reach district like Kalangala, with its widely scattered population. This is further compounded by the migrant fishing communities that stay on the islands for short periods before moving on.

iii. Human resource shortages: The district has a number of established positions within the sector that are unfilled, because of the hardships that health workers face while working in the district. An attempt is being made through support from ICEIDA to provide scholarships to brilliant students from the local communities to train as doctors and clinical officers. However because of the poor education standards, not many beneficiaries have been identified. It is our recommendation that the scholarship should be extended to other cadres of health workers that are easier to attract, train and retain in the area. These include nurses, midwives and nursing assistants.

iv. Dilapidated health infrastructure: Most health facilities are dilapidated and in need of renovation. Additionally, they lack support services such as water and electricity to make them functional. Because they are located in remote places, decent staff housing on site is essential for retaining skilled health workers in these places. ICEIDA has been supporting the district to provide water and solar energy at some of the health facilities. There is an urgent need to renovate, equip and staff at least one HCIV, preferably the one located on the main island, in order to be able to provide emergency obstetric care services such as caesarean sections and blood transfusions. This would significantly cut back on the need for referral outside the district. The main island is more easily accessible by patients from other islands.

v. Weak Referral Services: In cases of emergency that need specialized care, the transportation is mostly by boat and the patient’s family covers the cost. There is anecdotal evidence of many lives being lost in the process of facilitating referrals, especially for obstetric cases. There is a need to organize communities, either through village health teams (VHTs) or adult literacy groups, to be able to plan for such emergencies. Community health workers (CHWs) should be trained to be able to predict potential complications and facilitate early referral. Members of the community also need local level mobilization to effectively contribute towards the cost of running the boats that have been donated by ICEIDA to the local facilities.

13

In the health sector, ICEIDA has mainly focused on the following intervention areas; • Quarterly integrated health outreach activities on distant underserved islands and

anti-retro viral therapy (ART) outreaches to six HCIII. • Conducting school health programmes. The main component of this intervention

is health education messaging to the pupils and students of the 24 primary and three secondary schools in the district.

• Staff capacity building – ICEIDA has supported the dissemination of the health outreach manual and the training of health workers at different levels. Additionally, they have supported the establishment of the Village Health Teams through training of trainers (TOT).

• Provision of scholarships for students who are natives of the islands to pursue training as doctors and clinical officers, in an effort to boost numbers of health care personnel.

• Repair and maintenance of equipment at health facilities and also for vehicles, boats and boat engines.

• Strengthening of Health Unit Management committees through training. ICEIDA also supports the quarterly planning and review meetings for these teams.

• Infrastructure – mainly solar lighting systems and safe water supply systems for health centres. In addition, ICEIDA has supported the installation of a landline telephone system at all health facilities.

• Strengthening of health planning and monitoring, and evaluation mechanisms. Major challenges still remain, despite the above interventions. The HCIV at Kalangala is still not operating the way it should. Most people in the islands therefore still cannot access emergency surgical services when they need them. Rapid population growth remains a major drawback to any potential gains that could be made in the health sector. This growth is also attributed to in-migration by the largely nomadic fishing communities from other districts and even neighbouring Kenya and Tanzania. At the same time, most women have no access to effective modern contraceptive methods since they are only provided at health facilities that are very few and far apart. Even at the facilities that have them, there are incomplete methods, leaving most women with very limited options. There are, however, some opportunities that could be exploited to significantly improve access to an essential health care package by the Kalangala community based on the lessons learned from MVP approach. These should include, but not be limited to:

i. Improving the outreach programme to be more frequent and to cover a bigger population. The range of services provided, and health options for the communities, should be expanded. For instance, a broader mix of the family planning options for women would be quite effective.

ii. Strengthen the VHTs, especially the Community Health Workers (CHWs), to provide services at the community level. Evidence from several projects has proved that there are a range of services that can be safely provided at the household level by community health workers. However, they need to be well trained and supervised to provide the services safely. Some of the services that have been demonstrated to be effective when provided by community health workers include the following:

14

a. Home treatment of diarrhea with ORS and zinc. b. Home treatment of fever with effective anti-malarial drugs. c. Provision of long-lasting, insecticide-treated bed nets at the community level

to cover all sleeping sites free of cost to the consumer. Previously, only expectant mothers were covered but now the World Health Organization (WHO) recommends that every family member’s sleeping site must be covered by a mosquito net.

d. Regular de-worming of children between 12 and 59 months with albendazole. e. Identification, follow-up and referral to a health facility of all pregnancies.

Certain activities, such as provision of Iron and Folate, can be done at home. CHW can facilitate early referral for cases likely to develop complications.

f. Growth monitoring of children less than five years old and provision of related essential nutrition services.

g. Home-based care of persons living with HIV/AIDS, including provision of nutritional support.

iii. Improve community participation in matters affecting their health. Currently most community members expect the government to provide free services despite the obvious inadequate resources available to do so4. The adult learning groups in both countries are good entry points to mobilize the community members to take charge of their own health by complementing what the government is providing. Community members can be mobilized to aggressively pursue prevention measures for most illnesses and also plan for referrals.

iv. Improve referral services. Currently, the boats being used to facilitate referral are located at the health facilities. Most communities therefore do not have dedicated boats. As a result there are major delays in reaching a point of service in cases of emergency. Faraway communities should be supported with motorized wooden boats specifically designed to transport patients. The communities in turn should organize themselves to cover the running and maintenance costs of the vessels. This would not necessarily need to be a new intervention since they have already been financing transportation to Masaka and Entebbe. However, as experienced with the MVP, it would call for more community organizing, mobilization and working closely with community level health care personnel.

4.1.2 Fisheries The ICEIDA project has supported five landing sites and interventions made around these communities to be models. These have included fish display tables, jetties and sanitation infrastructure at the sites. KDDP has supported exposure visits to places such as Lake Choga and to Mwanza to view facilities at these places. Training of the beach management units (BMUs) and functional adult literacy programmes (FALP) programmes have supported the fishing communities. Fish is mainly preserved using ice, smoking or sun drying. However, there is a need to build drying racks to improve 4 According to an interview with the District Medical officer in-charge of Kalangala district. The government of Uganda has a policy of providing free health services to all its citizens. However the budget provisions are inadequate to support an essential package of health care.

15

quality. Modern smoking kilns should be built and enhanced with fuel reduction for efficiency. In terms of sustainability of the fishing economy, while the lake is a renewable resource, there is need to check the causes of low catches; these include illegal fishing activities by using un-recommended equipment, increases in the population of the fisher folk that raise pressure on the lake, control of fish sizes to allow the younger fish to mature, external pressures on the lake including industrial waste from neighbouring countries e.g Kenya. Additional landing sites were also recommended. Currently, there is no government control of the prices of fish and thus fisher folk are often exploited.

The study team recommends an entrepreneurial approach for the fisheries sector so that the fishing community does not continuously look upon it as only a subsistence activity, only but for long-term enterprise and empowerment. This is ultimately more sustainable and will encourage a saving culture among the community members.

4.1.3 Education Out of the 64 inhabited islands, only 11 have a primary school. There are a total of 25 primary schools two of them privately run, and three secondary schools, with two of these on the main island. Boarding school options for primary education have been greatly encouraged to address the low enrolment levels. ICEIDA, through the KDDP, is supporting three boarding primary schools to address the high-drop out rates. The education context is characterized by low enrolment and retention rates and, subsequently, low transition rates to secondary education. The fact that fishing brings in cash quickly and without any academic skills requirement, attracts children out of class. The migratory nature of the community has also caused high drop-out rates. Since teachers, text books and capitation grant distribution are based on the population, the district is denied adequate teachers, leaving some schools with only about four teachers to manage primary levels one up to seven. To solve this, the multi-grade system has been introduced as a stop-gap measure, where two or more levels of primary school education are taught together in one class. ICEIDA has already proposed to construct dormitories for three primary schools, in absence of any ‘modern’ boarding facilities in the district.

16

The ICEIDA project concentrates mainly on primary education. The main forms of support include: provision of co-curricula support to schools, including, sports, music, drama and arts; provision of boats for transportation; and refresher courses for teachers to interpret new curriculum and changing education policies. Further, the project has supported joint quarterly assessments from primary education. School committees that ensure parents’ participation in school activities have been formed. The high attrition rate of teachers is a major challenge in the education sector. While a top up allowance of Uganda Shillings 20,000 (US$12), was promised by the government as a hardship allowance, it is slow in coming, with delays of up to three months; also, being too little, it neither attracts teachers nor retains them. ICEIDA has also been running the functional adult literacy programme, (FALP) where many community members have learnt basic literacy skills including reading, writing and numeracy. Many said that they were happy and could no longer be cheated out of their money at the fisheries market. Groups of the FALP instructors and learners have combined to undertake business development activities including small scale financing. Organized members have formed savings and credit groups that received seed financing from ICEIDA from which the members can access loans. This was a positive exit strategy for ICEIDA in the wake of FALP winding up, and these business activities provide a good opportunity for the agency to learn from during future expansion and scale up into other productive sectors. Recommendations given in the area of education include; • Increase attention to secondary education similar to primary education, since

graduates of primary education are still not well equipped to engage in productive work. Attention to secondary education is also inadequate in the MDG framework, but is critical to the sector.

• As part of broader human resources management, the district government should increase teacher motivation through payment of hardship allowances, while ICEIDA can contribute through provision of equipment, and quality management through building the capacity of teachers and provision of teaching materials including textbooks.

• School committees should receive continued support as link pins with parents, to ensure both enrolment and retention through parents’ efforts.

• Greater exploration with the school feeding programme modeled on the Sauri MVP model5, earlier visited by a team from KDDP. Concerns were raised with Ugandan government policy that no children should be excluded from school based on lack of family contribution to the school feeding programme. This remains an area for greater exploration but, for sustainability purposes, the local government should take leadership.

5 In the Sauri Millennium Village in Kenya, farmers under the programme contribute 10% of their farm produce to the schools to support the school feeding programme. The rest is contributed from the school farm as well as direct project contribution. Children are also given receive nutritional supplements through the programme.

17

4.1.4 Water and Sanitation The water and sanitation programme in Uganda is implemented as part of the fisheries sector. The programme has mainly focused on capacity building of water department staff and community sensitization on basic sanitation and water management. Other target activities have been the development of design plans for fishing villages, functional water supply systems, and digging of eco-friendly pit latrines in the five pilot villages, namely Kasekulo, Kyagalanyi, Kisaba, Namisoke and Kachungwa. Waste management in the five model villages is inadequate because of the unplanned settlements in the fishing villages. In the absence of a sewerage system, and with houses too close to each other, meeting the challenges of safe drinking water and basic sanitation is the challenge that ICEIDA seeks to address in this sector. All in all, there was limited evidence of much progress in the water and sanitation side of the programme in Kalangala, which could be attributed to late commencement of the programme.

4.1.6 Untapped Potential The PEAP encourages a balance between the social and productive sectors, and hence the study team recommends that in addition to the fisheries sector in Uganda, ICEIDA should begin to focus on other productive and untapped sectors as well. The soils at Kalangala

have been said to be inappropriate for large-scale commercial agricultural production. We propose that crops that can grow there, such as sweet potatoes, cassava and pineapples, be grown to supplement the income from fishing. This will be a two- pronged approach to both address overfishing in the lake and provide alternative livelihood sources for the residents of Kalangala. Enterprise development, beginning with the fisheries sector, should be further

developed to boost small-scale enterprises. This is further recommended for greater impact in the fisheries sector, and mainly target value addition by packaging dried fish, fish sauces, and other forms of fish processing. Information communication technology (ICT), which is a key component of enterprise development in the MVP, should be embraced by ICEIDA in its approach to strengthen connectivity in the island. The already identified potential for energy through district solar installation should be stepped up to ensure that the productive sector departments at the district headquarters level are well covered and connected through the internet.

18

4.2 Malawi

4.2.0 Introduction The Malawi Growth and Development Strategy 2006-2011 (MGDS) is the overarching strategy for Malawi between the 2006/7 to 2010/11 fiscal years. It is the country’s medium-term strategy designed to achieve its Vision 2020. Its main focus is on wealth creation through sustainable economic growth and infrastructure development as a means to achieve poverty reduction. In its own words, it is the ‘single reference document for policy makers in government, private sector, civil society, donors, and cooperating partners on the country’s socio-economic development priorities....’ (p.1) The MGDS observes that the situation of poverty has not changed in the 7 years prior to 2006. According to the Integrated Household Survey 2004/05, 52.4% of the population lives below the poverty line. Food security remains an overriding threat to improving livelihoods. Informed by these and many other challenges, the MGDS has identified six key priority areas: agriculture and food security; irrigation and water development; transport infrastructure development; energy generation and supply; integrated rural development; and prevention and management of nutrition disorders, HIV and AIDS.

4.2.1 Health; The main health facilities in Mangochi district are hospitals, health centres, health posts and clinics. Most of them are owned by the government and the Christian Health Association of Malawi (CHAM). All government health facilities provide free services while non-governmental facilities, including CHAM, charge for their services. In addition, traditional healers and birth attendants (TBAs) also provide health services. There are a total of four hospitals, 29 health centres, two health posts and 248 outreach clinics in the district. (Mangochi DA, 2008: 109) ICEIDA is focusing on mainly the TA Nankumba in its health sector support, although the district hospital also receives health sector support from ICEIDA as well. ICEIDA has been working in the health sector in Malawi since the year 2000. The approach employed has been project oriented with the main focus being Nankumba TA in the district with an estimated population of 110,0006 people in mid-2008. The first phase of the project was between 2000 and 2003 and focused on two main areas: infrastructural development such as the new health facility in Monkey Bay and provision of necessary medical equipment to the facility; strengthening the service provision, staff

training, and implementation of health care programmes according to the Malawi National Health plan of 1999-2004. ICEIDA has developed a community hospital according to MOH

6 Statistics provided during the interview with the Director of District Planning

19

specifications. It is now nearly in service, awaiting completion of the x-ray unit, paediatric and isolation wards, and the kitchen area. Remarkable work has been done at the facility and the quality of services being provided is of high standards7. ICEIDA has also supported renovation and construction of staff houses at two other health facilities: the Nankumba and Chilonga Health Centres. MBCH now functions as the first line referral hospital for the Monkey Bay health zone. This has in many ways taken a significant patient load from the Mangochi district hospital. ICEIDA is currently covering most of the operational costs of the MBCH since the government is not able to provide adequate funds to run the facility. The government of Malawi on the other hand provides staff and drugs to the facility. However drug supplies are never adequate and ICEIDA has had to provide supplementary drugs from time to time. Some of the successes that have been attributed to these interventions include: • an increase in facility-based delivery in Monkey Bay Health zone, significantly

reducing risks for unattended obstetric emergencies and even deaths • A significant increase in out-patient attendance; in 2007, MBCH saw more than

60,000 outpatients8 • A significant increase in bed occupancy at the community hospital • A wide range of services now available at the facility, e.g. surgical, ART, maternity,

laboratory, etc. Other areas of health service delivery that ICEIDA has supported for the Monkey Bay health zone and the entire Mangochi district includes provision of ambulance services that cover the entire zone and which transfer patients to the district hospital at Mangochi. This service benefits all facilities in the zone, including the ones run by CHAM. The service is provided free of cost to all the patients who need it. To support effective referral, all the outpost clinics have been fitted with communication equipment that allows them to call for ambulances as needed. Training of health workers is provided at both local and external institutions. ICEIDA has supported health outreach services to several areas within the community in the form of motorbikes with a budget for fuel and maintenance. Provision of solar power and water services to several facilities including some CHAM-supported hospitals, has clearly boosted the health sector within Nankumba. Challenges Overall, most of the people interviewed had a high regard for the interventions provided by ICEIDA. However, there are still some challenges within the Monkey Bay health zone and the rest of the district. Malaria still remains the leading cause of childhood deaths in the district9 despite the fact that cure and prevention measures are known. Maternal mortality ratio remains very high with a 2007 estimate of the district ratio to be 807 deaths per 100,000 live births, according to the 2008 draft District Social Economic Profiles (DSEP). This was compounded by a number of factors such as early pregnancies. 7 As shown in the midterm review of the Monkey Bay Community Hospital by two independent consultants in 2007. 8 Monkey Bay Community Hospital Annual report as presented to us by the Project manager 9From the interview with the District Medical Officer of Health

20

Access to family planning remains low, with the district contraceptive prevalence rate being 34.5% 9 compared to the national rate of 38%. Utilization of long-term methods is disproportionately much lower. HIV/AIDS remains a major challenge in the area. The district has a significantly higher prevalence, 21%, than the national figure of 12% (DSEP, 2008). The rapid spread of the disease is compounded by harmful cultural practices that are common in the area, including circumcision rituals. Finally, poor infrastructure in the district remains a major barrier to effective health service delivery. Most parts of the district cannot be accessed during the rainy seasons because the roads are impassable and some bridges get washed away. Access to electricity from the grid is limited to just a few areas close to the major roads and most health facilities do not have access to safe water sources. Key Recommendations for the health sector: The challenges outlined above are enormous and will require significant investments and time to address them. It will also require many partners, including the government, the community and other development agencies, to come together to address different issues. This study notes that ICEIDA is well placed to influence significant changes in the area, especially now when a new project document is being developed for the health sector. There are a number of opportunities that exist in the area, which ICEIDA can tap into to rapidly scale up access to health services. They include optimum utilization of the structures provided by the Health Surveillance Assistants (HSAs). Outreach health workers are mandated to provide a wide range of services, including immunization and family planning services. They need to be well run and equipped to meet the logistical challenges that they currently face. ICEIDA’s high recognition, both at the TA and at the district level, can be utilized to influence overall planning, policy orientation and improved management of health services. The study team proposes the following recommendations for ICEIDA to consider in its next phase of engagement, based on the MVP experience.

i. Focus on Primary Health Care Services; most of the diseases prevalent in the area can easily be prevented and the resultant deaths averted. However, this requires moving beyond the health facilities to household level. ICEIDA should consider strengthening operations of HSAs by constructing more outreach shelters and providing supplies. Some of the focus areas should include the following:

• Malaria prevention through provision of long-lasting, insecticide-treated bed nets to cover 100% of sleeping sites. These should be provided at no cost to the consumers. The prevention can be further strengthened through regular indoor residual spraying (IRS). For those who still fall sick, prompt treatment with effective anti-malarial drugs within the community must be ensured. These interventions have been shown to reduce malaria prevalence in the MVP sites by more than 50% and can easily be replicated in Mangochi area.

21

• Regular de-worming as part of the school health programme, to be provided to all children at least every four months and be integrated in the education sector as part of the primary education service.

• Growth monitoring at household level: provision of anthropometric equipment and training of HSAs will be critical to facilitate this.

• HSA’s could liaise with the CDA’s and use the ALP to integrate family planning • Aggressive health education to support clean living environments and proper

sanitation. ii. Family planning for reducing the population growth rate. One of the factors that will

hinder Malawi from achieving the MDGs is the very rapid population growth. Average fertility rate is estimated to be 6.1, which is one of the highest in Africa. As noted elsewhere in this report, contraceptive prevalence remains low and this is an important area where ICEIDA can have a major impact through the following:

• Ensure commodity safety at all health facilities and that all health workers are trained on the provision of various methods.

• Support HSAs to provide all the options as mandated by the health policy, including depo provera.

• Create demand within the community for family planning services and ensure that the correct information10 is provided to the community.

• Reposition long-term family planning methods such as IUDs, sub-dermal implants and surgical methods, for sustained effects.

iii. Address human resource management and capacity needs. ICEIDA has had a major impact in addressing the training needs of health care workers. The numbers are, however, very low. For example, Mangochi district, with an estimated population of close to one million people, had only three doctors at the time of the review. Senior medical personnel can be easily complemented by well trained community-level health personnel including HSAs, community-based distribution assistants, village health committees and growth monitoring volunteers.

iv. Health infrastructure development. While there was a strong expression of interest by many people interviewed for ICEIDA to consider expanding some of its infrastructural interventions to other parts of the district, care should be taken to avoid over- concentration on expensive expansion at the expense of health systems development, which might even prove more easily scalable and sustainable.

v. Supporting the district health management team (DHMT). ICEIDA should consider strengthening the capacity of the Mangochi DHMT to carry out its mandate in the whole district. This includes supervision, planning and coordination. Continued collaboration with the district government will improve the chances of sustainability once ICEIDA hands the project back to the government. Already, efforts to complete the MBCH to the level of government-sponsored community hospitals is a strong sustainability measure.

10 During the team’s discussions with one of the adult learning circles, it was clear that there is still need to demystify contraceptive use, as the group clearly did not have the right information.

22

4.2.2 Fisheries The initial aims of the ICEIDA support to fisheries were to improve current fishing technologies for greater catches and study fish resource levels and their status. There was a need to build new technology into the fisheries sector and to handle increased volumes in fish processing. Some of the achievements in the sector include a high level of capacity building, complete involvement of the district fisheries department, and training of the Beach Village Committees (BVCs). These are groups of fishermen and boat owners. The ICEIDA fisheries project primarily aims to encourage offshore fishing in the deeper waters of Lake Malawi and to provide fishing gear and boats for this kind of fishing. Some of the key success points include: • Renovation of one landing site. • Ability to move to deeper waters at fewer sites thus giving fish stocks in the

shallower waters a chance to recover. This is due to better fishing gear and boats. Fishermen buy their own equipment to sustain the intervention; the project only provides demonstration examples.

• Research activities, including assessing the status of stocks and establishment of social profiles of various villages, have been accomplished.

• As a result of the ICIEDA project, fish catches have increased but there is no data to show how much of an increase has been achieved. Economic empowerment is still lacking and support is needed to strengthen the

fisher folk’s ability to control and dictate the price of their catch. Gear development started with consultative meetings among stakeholders to target unexploited species in the deeper waters. The gear used then were not appropriate for offshore use. However there is no documented data on gear usage and no policy on appropriate gear. In 2008, an analysis supported by ICEIDA focused on the economic and environmental viability of fishing in the Mangochi area of the lake. The gear used in Lake Tanganyika, and others used in the Mediterranean Sea, were studied and imported into Malawi. While the gear problem has been sorted out, it has emerged that this new gear cannot be used with the existing fishing vessels, which then form the next area of focus. ICEIDA has supported the design of a fishing boat at a cost of Mk 200,000 (US$1430). It will also require another Mk 400,000 (US$2860) for an engine which makes the entire set quite expensive for an average fishing community, especially on an individual basis.

23

The gender divisions of labour reveal that women in the fishing sector are largely owners of the gear, fish processors and traders; the actual fishing is done by men. Fishing around the lake is well regulated but not enforced, leading to frequent use of illegal gear by the fishermen and preventable accidents in the lake. ICEIDA has invested significantly in training BVCs on safety at sea all round the peninsula and beyond the confines of the TA Nankumba. All the frontline landing site staff have also been trained on security measures at sea. There are some challenges in the sector, including the fragmented community. If the fishing community and stakeholders were organized into cooperatives, it would give them more of a voice to dictate prices. This needs urgent attention to bring a much needed turnaround in the fishing sector. There is also a need to develop better local level processing units to store the catch while awaiting better prices, in order to undercut middle persons and have more money going into the community. Thus the market value chain should be studied and avenues for value addition in the fishing sector identified and pursued. An environmental audit of the fishing activities has not been done yet and would be beneficial. Other challenges include lack of a fisheries laboratory to test the existing technology, including gear. As noted above, the available craft are still too small for the new gear, which has been identified as necessary for deep sea fishing. Looking at the sector critically, one realizes that the maximization of the fisheries as an enterprise is underexploited and hardly satisfies the local market; Mangochi and other inland markets, as far as Lilongwe and Blantyre, are all inadequately supplied with fish. The government policy for maximizing benefits from fisheries resources is yet to be fulfilled. For this to happen, there is need to encourage public-private partnership. The African Development Bank (ADB) has renovated landing sites and roads leading to the main markets. However, the funding was through the government and most of it went into management costs rather than improvements in the sector. Currently, fish farming is being encouraged based on successful pilot projects on fish farms along the lake, which opens a new avenue for greater engagement with the private sector. ICEIDA is in a good position to adopt a partnership approach in developing-public private partnerships for greater growth and future sustainability of the sector. This study recommends that ICEIDA should increase technical assistance in fish gear technology and resources, given Iceland’s experience in the fisheries sector. The experts in the sector should provide guidance founded on factual research and fish resource assessment, and also guide the enterprise dimensions of fisheries at community level to enhance benefits to the community from the sector. The team also recommends that the incoming project coordinator for the fisheries sector should have strong enterprise development skills and will have the development of a business plan for the sector as a priority in his/her TOR. This person should then be mandated to have the community organized into groups and commence a pilot phase.

24

They can do this using the concept of ‘local champions’11 who will then influence gradual change in the community. About 40% of all residents in the district are believed to derive their livelihood from the lake. Data collection and management should be stepped up by the fisheries department supported by ICEIDA. The fisheries sector contributes 4% of the GDP, according to official figures, but this is believed to be higher if the rural catches are included. At the Madzedze landing site, the committee has 18 members six of whom are women, and all of them are traders. Three of the men are boat owners who have contributed fuel, paraffin, food for crew, boat. The daily consumables are deducted from the total catch and the balance divided equally between crew and boat owner. An average fisherman takes home Mk. 900 ($6), per night. There is no saving culture, and a lot of the takings from the fisheries enterprises go to purchase alcohol and food. As a result, ICEIDA could intervene here as a measure to boost community-level production and more economic empowerment through enterprise development. The following recommendations are proposed for the fisheries sector; i. Support community mobilization for enterprise development and value chain development. It was noted that there are cultural factors that present obstacles in grouping fishermen for joint savings and enterprises, e.g. jointly owned boats. This should therefore be considered in negotiating a common ground with the community. Capacity assessment of small-scale irrigation and enterprise development from non- fishing productive sectors. Exploring provision of micro-finances to fishing groups, going hand-in-hand with skills building in savings and credit schemes. ii. The ICEIDA project aims to give technical support to small-sector operators to tap offshore resources using affordable technology. This could be further strengthened by investing in small-scale mechanized fisheries infrastructure and scientific assessment of available fish stocks and their economic viability. iii. Social impact assessment and environmental impact assessments and audits. Management of natural resources to conserve the environment around landing sites. In addition, sanitation facilities around fishing sites including waste disposal systems need to be developed. Other facilities should include ice plants. iv. The Madzedze landing site is under-utilized. ICEIDA could support the local community to maximize use of the site through increased catches and working closely with private sector and local government for scalability and sustainability. Support value addition to fish catches before sale to boost local enterprise. Entry of a private sector with trawler technology could boost catches, sales, enterprise and general improvements of the sector, providing the fish stocks can support the activity. v. Support the district government to enforce fishing policies and regulations. This would include a tax review of the sector.

11 Local champions have been used in development processes to pilot projects that communities are slow to respond to due to challenges such as culture-based obstacles. They are carefully selected and will often be well trained and convinced that the project is valuable to them. Then, over a period of time, results emerging from their work are used to influence the perceptions of other community members. Ideally, local champions will live within community and their efforts will be mainly to advance the projects with only minimal support from the development agency.

25

4.2.3 Education ICEIDA’s focus in this sector is mainly in the areas of staff houses, gender friendly latrines and boreholes. Infrastructural development has included building school and administration blocks, libraries and providing furniture. ICEIDA has also expanded support to TA Mponda, and in the 2009-2014 work plan there are plans to expand to other TAs. However current financial constraints have put these prospects for expansion on hold. There is a gradual and positive shift in focus from only primary education to secondary education as well. Gender concerns in education are glaring and there is a need for additional community sensitization on education for girls as well as boys, to boost current sensitization efforts. Further, bursaries for girls in secondary schools would boost transition rates of girls from primary schools. Rotary and Soroptomists from Iceland have supported bursaries for girls in secondary schools in Mangochi throught ICEIDA. Distribution of sanitary items for girls is also critical for success. Earlier on, such a programme, focussing on sanitary products distribution targeting only secondary school girls was run, but it was not sustained. But, on enrolment, gender-disaggregated data for the district is available. It was noted that there have been high rates of drop-outs especially for girls due to unwanted pregnancies. A total of 2470 girls and 2,378 boys had dropped out of primary education. Some 102 girls were reported to have dropped out due to pregnancies. The school feeding programme is being undertaken in 44 out of 241 primary schools, all under the support of WFP. A result of this is that there has been over-enrolment in the 44 schools as children migrate to the schools with a school feeding programme, an indication that, as experienced with the MVP, school feeding is an incentive for retention in schools. ICEIDA has also been running an adult learning programme premised on the Regenerated Freirean Literacy through Empowering Community Techniques, (REFLECT) approaches. The approach enables learners to focus on other development processes besides basic literacy elements such as reading and writing. Thus an empowerment aspect is implied through a shift from conventional teacher-learner relationship to more interactive modes of learning and facilitation. Learners are divided into learning circles of people in a common locality through whom ICEIDA is piloting livelihood activities in the productive sectors. This study recommends documentation of lessons emerging from these activities, to inform future expansion within the productive sectors. Recommendations for ICEIDA in education include: • Extension of the sectoral support to other TAs, but mainly on broader support

targeting the district level through better information management systems, including data collection and analysis, gender integration, and continuous quality and relevance.

• Expansion into secondary education. There are currently only three boarding secondary schools in Mangochi district: one school attracting competition nationally, and two district-based schools. One of these is for boys only, but there is none that is

26

purely a girls-only boarding school. A proposal given to ICEIDA to support building hostels for girls exists. The drift is towards establishment of a girls-only secondary school in the district. This would be an investment with potential for wider population coverage and is recommended for ICEIDA in Malawi.

• School feeding programme has proved effective in attracting and retaining children in school, under the support of the WFP. ICEIDA could partner with the current programme to extend support to the entire district.

• Partners in the education sector include: CIDA (textbooks), UNICEF, WFP (school feeding), ICEIDA, EU (staff houses and classrooms), DFID, GTZ (district education plan development), JICA (capacity building of science teachers), Save the Children (nutritional capacity building), WB (health, nutrition and purchase of drugs). A partnership approach in the education sector is encouraged and supported, both for sustainability of the interventions by the district government and to pool resources.

• Development and implementation of a policy that permits reintegration of underage girls who dropped out of school owing to early pregnancies.

4.2.4 Water and Sanitation In this sector, ICEIDA has worked with government to align the interventions with the government policy under a cost-sharing arrangement. The project offers options to communities and has created demonstration units utilizing context-specific technology. The ecological sanitation latrine is a technology that involves removing soil up to the hard formation level, lining with bricks within the latrine and placing a slab on top. A pair of such latrines is dug with an aim of recycling waste when one fills up. The technology allows for treatment of human waste for use as manure in vegetable gardens and other farms, although there was evidence of community hesitation to utilize the manure in this way. With regard to water supply, there has been a good deal of borehole rehabilitation as well as digging additional boreholes and shallow water wells at schools, hospitals and other community spaces, especially villages. In recent years, outbreaks of waterborne diseases including cholera and bilharzia, have been recorded and principally prompted ICEIDA’s interventions in the water and sanitation sector. The interventions are only in the TA Nankumba, with a target of 24,000 households and a total population of about 110,000. This sector started in 2006 and aims that, by 2010, 300 shallow water wells will have been dug, 100 boreholes drilled and 50 water points rehabilitated. The sanitation component targets 20,000 of the improved pit latrines also referred to ‘ecological sanitation’ (ecosan) type and so far 8,000 have been built. Intervention in the sanitation sector was requested through the MOH mainly to respond to the then predictable cholera outbreaks during every rainy season. In 2002, a total of 33,000 cases of cholera were reported and 100 people lost their lives as a result. This informed the decision by ICEIDA to intervene in this sector in 2006. Communities contribute materials and labour which are both important for ownership and sustainability of the project. The

27

communitity members dig their own latrines thus contributing labour and local material (reeds) for the walls of the latrine while the project contributes cement for the slab. Communities still seem to have some preference for the traditional latrine since, being deeper they do not fill up too soon. The ecosan on the other hand is by design shallower to enable utilization of the ‘manure’ once abandoned. It was noted that most members of the Musaka area in Chimpamba village were still not keen on using human waste as manure despite this, and currently, only one person is utilizing the manure for vegetable growing..

Recommendations in the water and sanitation sector; • Need for a good

communication strategy to disseminate messages on hygiene and domestic sanitation, while carefully presenting the options available to community.

• An integrated approach in the water and sanitation sector is encouraged this includes focus on water for irrigation.

• ICEIDA should consider expanding to other TAs in the district and also documenting the emerging lessons as learning points for other partners in the water and sanitation sector.

4.2.5 Untapped potential Irrigation is an important component of food security that is still underutilized. A number of organizations have supported this sector but it has not developed well to date. These include FAO, World Vision and Save the Children, through the Ministry of Agriculture. This would be an important area for ICEIDA to support strategically. Increased support to livelihoods is one way to enhance this. In the livelihoods support for the ALP circles, there is some focus on some slected productive sectors including crop growing and group based irrigation. These could be used as pilots to inform expansion to the productive sectors. The current TA-wide support of ICEIDA is commendable and a similar support in irrigation is highly encouraged. Irrigation scheme crops include paprika chillies, maize, sugar cane, bananas, tomatoes and other vegetables. Technical assistance is needed to identify the most suitable form of irrigation and water pumps. There is unused irrigable land which can be used to both reduce over-reliance on fishing and to promote non-rain-dependent small-scale farming and boost agribusiness. This has been an untapped opportunity.

28

Irrigation for food security and agribusiness Malawi is largely dependent on erratic rain-fed agriculture, and suffers food insecurity shocks. It is evident from the review of interventions at both sites that ICEIDA has focused more on the social sectors, with only fisheries in the productive sectors. It is also evident that the gains so far in the fisheries sector as a result of ICEIDA’s interventions, although significant, have not had any major impact on the livelihoods of the fisher folk, as ultimately intended. Like all natural resources, fisheries need to be guarded from over exploitation which might lead to depletion over time. With this in mind, the team proposes that ICEIDA begin to focus support on alternative productive sectors and at the same time step up support to enterprise development aspects of the fisheries sector to make it more competitive, productive and inculcate a saving culture among the fisher

folk. This is the surest way to sustain such interventions and to interest community in production and development. There is clearly potential for irrigation and small- scale food production, firstly for subsistence and secondly for commercial purposes as realized in the MVP model. With simple scientific soil assessment plus fertilizer and seed

inputs, food production has tripled in all the agricultural MVP sites including Mwandama in Malawi and Ruhiira in Uganda. In Mangochi, maize and fruits have been successfully grown with irrigation in the Monkey Bay peninsula, and this could be stepped up with greater support from ICEIDA in partnership with respective ministries, to effectively guarantee an alternative livelihood source. The community resource centre promises to be good source of interactions through ICT, new energy sources and enterpreneural interactions among the community members. This should be further harnessed to boost productive outputs.

4.3 Sustainability and scalability Traditional authorities should be co-opted in local governance processes since they play important local level roles especially in conflict resolution. Thus to encourage local acceptance and dissemination of messages promoting the projects and to ensure effectiveness of participatory planning, they become quite relevant in anchoring the project for sustainability. Thus this study hails the partnership embraced with the TA Nankumba.

29

There does not seem to be adequate, analyzed and clear documentation of useful lessons learned for scaling up or peer learning across institutions, for both Uganda and Malawi, in the ICEIDA programmes. Sustainability is used here in the MVP understanding that, after the project funding stops, the social and economic benefits continue without a ‘loss of momentum’, (The Earth Institute, 2007). For this to take place, the local-level institutions including local government and organized communities, would need to be functioning appropriately in line with national government development policies. For the MVP, for example, the shift from subsistence farming to agribusiness and broader enterprise development is a prerequisite for sustainability. Scaling up on the other hand seeks to expand the project and its lessons for a broader based effect. For purposes of the ICEIDA programme this should be seen in the form of having the investments in place benefit a wider population, or having some of the approaches in place inform other projects established by government or other donors through documented lessons learned from practice. Within the MVP model, scaling up to other village sites, upgrading the interventions to the district scale, or using the lessons to inform national and global policy, are all modes of scaling up not just MVP, but broader MDG-based, interventions. In Uganda, many challenges affect the sustainability of the programme. Due to the terrain and the numerous islands served by the KDDP project, fuel and transportation costs are still very high and might not be easily sustained by the local government without external assistance. Further, the BMUs should be strengthened to undertake co-management of the landing sites and other infrastructure. Untapped opportunities should be explored, including ecotourism. ICEIDA supported an income revenue enhancement study to assist in revenue collection. The central government is now stripping the local authority of its responsibility for issuing fishing licences, thus reducing local revenues. According to ICEIDA project staff, sustainability is difficult and much institutional development would need to be integrated. Some aspects of this are seen in the association of FALP instructors’ that has now been recognized as an NGO at national level which can render the service and which also has invested in other projects for income generation. In Malawi on the other hand, the district is quite dependent on relief supplies, local government assistance, aid from churches and mosques, as well as from other development agencies. Although the terrain is good for agriculture, there is little exploitation of this potential due to unreliable rainfall and under-utilization of irrigation. Officers at central and some district levels did not seem to have ideas on sustainability concerns, in the context of poverty and limited natural resources to work with. However, a sector-wide approach was seen to be a sustainable model where, even if one donor left, their departure would not cripple the sector as would happen if a single donor supporting many sectors in one geographical area would leave unexpectedly. The communities at both sites generally access cash easily from the fishing economy, but social investments have not been explored or encouraged so far. Where communities are

30

able to plough back resources into social services such as health, this enhances collaborative efforts to service deliveries among communities, local government and other partners. Other aspects of sustainability that need strengthening are value chain development, targeting productive sectors from the producer, including the fisherman, to processing and marketing for fisheries (which ICEIDA has so far been supporting) and other sectors. Informed by this background, we recommend that ICEIDA begin to strategically focus on the productive sectors as well as the social sectors. The untapped potential identified elsewhere in this report would be a useful place to start. The MDG framework focuses more on the social sectors than the productive sectors, although goals 1 and 812 have made some reference to the productive sectors. The MVP has recognized the importance of the productive sectors and, having demonstrated that food security is easily attained by using the right farm inputs, the focus now is on agribusiness and enterprise development to financially equip the communities so that they are not passive recipients of development but contributing participants. ICIEDA could consider commissioning an assessment of the viable productive sectors in close collaboration with the relevant ministries and district government department, and gradually invest in this as well. The fisheries sector, as already mentioned, has not been maximally utilized, but irrigation for agribusiness is worth investing in. One important sustainability mechanism is embracing partnership approaches in the programme. Recognition of the actors in the district is a beginning point for identifying strategic partnerships. One major actor are the communities and it is important to reflect on what role they will play. The communities can participate through their representatives on the local council or as pressure groups pushing for equity and service delivery. Private entrepreneurs are both users when it comes to infrastructure and energy, and also service providers when they provide technical services to government institutions. The local government itself, working closely with the sector or line departments is another major player, actually the ideal leader of development processes. Finally there are NGOs both homegrown and external operating in the locality and providing different services to the community. Expertise and other resources from all these should be pooled to avoid duplication of interventions, or too many projects in one area while leaving out other areas. They need to be recognized and encouraged and also remain accountable both to the community and their leaders and their donors. We encourage ICEIDA to take advantage of the leadership position enjoyed at the district level in both places and encourage a partnership approach to district development. With only a small budget to allow consultations and dialogue, the effects of this would benefit a large proportion of the population in the district.13 Civil societies (CSOs) form a category of local actors that is non-state and enjoys some level of autonomy. Strengthening this group or nurturing its emergence is important as it

12 MDG 1: Reduce hunger and poverty MDG 8: Global partnership for development 13 UNCDF, 2006: 149

31

stimulates external pressure for institutional and policy reform, thus ensuring greater government accountability. In their ‘watchdog’ role, they are well placed to facilitate collective action making the voice of the community louder and not easy to ignore. At another level, many CSOs have been seen to provide significant levels of service delivery to communities, as exemplified by the organizations in Kalangala supported under the KDDP programme. These organizations include Kalangala District NGOs network, KAFOPHAN, and Lujjabwa Women’s Development Group. A significant part of the war against HIV/AIDS has been won in part due to the active participation of these organizations at the community level. This study recommends greater support to the CSOs in the districts where ICEIDA is operating, not just to play the roles above but also to complement ICEIDA’s own activities. For example, in the sectors where ICEIDA is not prominent, such as environmental conservation, gender mainstreaming etc., these organizations would offer a complementary role that would contribute to a net positive development in the district. It’s important to note that having emerged locally, these voices remain long after the externally funded projects wind up, and therefore provide important sustainability avenues. Care should however be taken since CSOs are not always positive in their action. They may on one hand promote social inclusion and political participation, and at the same time have partisan interests, leading to marginalization of certain groups.14

4.4 Financing modalities “…donor organizations pursued ‘their own’ interventions, paying insufficient attention to intra- and inter-sectoral issues and to recipient country needs and preferences. This does not mean that there is no support for projects anymore, but rather the embedding of the project approach has changed: ‘It is the notion of who is leading and who ‘owns’ the development agenda…” (Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs, www.minbuza.nl>Development Cooperation March 2003, p.1)

Beginning in the 1990s, international development agencies have shifted gradually towards programme-based approaches (PBAs)i with the intention of avoiding fragmentation of development assistance and to enhance better cooperation. The ownership of development programmes of recipient countries, as well as capacity development and institutional building of partner organizations, are strongly emphasized, and this was not effectively achieved with the PBAs. Sector-wide approach (SWAp) on the other hand is a process where a single policy and expenditure programme is led by the government with a harmonized approach across the sector. There is involvement of broad stakeholder consultation in the design of a coherent sector programme at community, sub-national and national levels accompanied by strong coordination among donors and with government. SWAps provide room for project funding where the projects are entirely part of the policy and budget. Basket funding (BF) which means joint funding by several donors involves cash transfer to a common account that keeps the basket resources separate from all other resources

14 UNCDF, 2006:186

32

intended for the same purpose. Accounting, planning, monitoring and evaluation processes are common to all participating donors and in conformity with the public expenditure management procedures of the recipient government. ICEIDA’s funding mechanism in Uganda is through budget support of the Kalangala local government. KDDP is drawn from priority programmes that have been highlighted from the district development plan; the project thus contributes to the pool of resources already available to the local government. However, it targets specific mutually identified sectors namely education, health, fisheries, water and sanitation, and administration, all implemented by the local government through the sectoral departments. In Malawi on the other hand, the project contributes to five different sectors, again jointly identified with respective central ministries but implemented at the district level, with a specific focus on the Nankumba traditional authority. There are thus a set of separate projects each with a project manager, coordinator and other facilitators, as well as budget lines and logistical support, all guided by respective project documents. In both countries, ICEIDA holds the funds and releases the cheques based on expenditure approved by the local government. The effect of this is that resources available to the sectors go directly to the intended activities. Despite being due to subjection to respective government’s procurement procedures, there is no room for diversion from intended purposes. We therefore propose that this project approach be maintained for these two districts for the next five years but that more focus be made on the non infrastructural aspects of the sectors, just as it has been with the infrastructure development. This will ease concerns with sustainability and scalability. One of the concerns noted with both ICEIDA sites is low absorptive capacity for funds. This is demonstrated through inadequate capacity of the local governments to plan, budget and implement; low rate of sectoral departments’ implementation and delivery of services; and lengthy bureaucracy in procurement. The United Nations Capital Development Fund’s (UNCDF) local development programme (LDP) experiences argue for relatively modest flows of between $1.5 and $3 per capita of population resident in the LDP area at the beginning and gradually increasing15. ICEIDA’s sectoral financing as compared to the MVP In both countries, there have been concerns of slow absorption rates by the respective local governments. Despite this, Malawi is set to receive about 25% of the entire ICEIDA budget, signifying a sizeable investment in this country above other ICEIDA partnering countries. The sectoral distribution of this investment in 2008 in Malawi is as follows: Malawi investments for 2008

Irrigation and water supply 26%, education 38%, health 17%, agriculture 17%, and gender 2%.

15 UNCDF, 2006:54.

Fisheries 8%

Bunda 2% 0%

Primary15%

ALP15%

0% W&S22% 0%

HEALTH 28%

BOTTOM10% Fisheries

Bunda

PrimaryALP

W&S

HEALTH

33BOTTOM

In Uganda, the figures for 2008 are, according to the district development plan for Kalangala: health 22%, education 13%, administration 42%, and fisheries 23%.

Kalangala investments for 2008 Education. 13%

dministration. 42%

Health. 22% Education

Fisheries. 2 3% Fisheries

Administration

AHealth

The MVP on the other hand, adopts a needs-based financing methodology that advocates for at least US$110 per capita per annum. This is allocated as follows: US$1016 is community contribution in the form of labour, local materials and time; US$20 from development agencies operating in the district where the MVP is located; US$30, the sum of government-funded projects including financing from the local government, sectoral ministry departments and other decentralized funds; and US$50, currently provided by MVP, forms the component that should be financed through increased ODA. While actual investments per site might vary slightly, the sectoral distribution of the financing is as follows: 30% health; 20% infrastructure and ICT; 15% agriculture; and 15% water sanitation and environment. (Sanchez et al, 2007). Clearly, both programmes have pooled significant amounts of finances for the successful implementation of the programmes. However, there is need for a strategic exit strategy that will ensure that the social progress already in place does not lose momentum. The MVP acknowledges that the villages will not necessarily be self-sufficient socially and economically at the end of the five-year time frame. Rather, the expectation is that with current efforts to ensure continued smooth operations at the community and local-level institutions, and within service delivery mechanisms, there will be a smooth transition of current activities from the project managers to the local government. The team proposes the following strategies to ICEIDA: • Step up capacity building of local level institutions, founded within the community as

sustainability strategy; in Malawi, the VDCs, the ALP circles and TAs should be a good place to start.

• Commence strategic interventions in the productive sectors. As explained elsewhere in this report, agriculture and irrigation are viable activities. With sme investment in simple treadle pumps and skills building in small-scale agriculture for Mangochi, the potential for greater incomes for the community would be increased.

• For both Mangochi and Kalangala, greater interventions in the enterprise side of the fisheries sector could bring a turnaround of the sector for larger incomes, more savings and greater organizing of the fishing communities at Lake Malawi and Lake Victoria.

• For Kalangala, the revenue enhancement plan for the local government should be finalized and implemented to boost local revenue collection by the local government.

16 Often community contributes much more than this in real sence

34

This will ensure more resources for the local government, supplemented by the KDDP, to enhance service delivery in the district.

Clearly, in Kalangala, ICEIDA has invested quite a lot in support for local administration, at 42%. This has been mainly in the form of capacity building for local government personnel, support to district planning, support to studies such as the revenue enhancement plan and the training needs assessment, as well as the capacity building plan, and support to private sector and non-governmental organizations. This being a significant amount, we propose that it be now utilized to focus on lower local government levels, and institutional building at community level and in levels lower than LC III, still channelled through the district as a sustainability strategy in the long run.

4.5 Human resources management and capacity building There are concerns about inadequate human resources for the various sectors at both Kalangala and Mangochi. Due to contextual reasons, the government is not able to attract and retain adequate staff, and the turnover is fairly high. This has been variously attributed to lack of staff houses, absence of hardship allowances or salary top-ups for marginalized regions. Other concerns are inadequate operational budgets for the sectors, lack of transport mechanisms, computers and other information communicating technology (ICT) facilities. All these have led to low motivation and a desire to seek ‘greener pastures’ even within government, in other districts where access to social amenities is ‘easier’. In Kalangala, there are few qualified personnel originating in the district and so most of the civil service personnel are from outside the district. ICEIDA has significantly contributed to addressing some of the HR-related challenges by contributing to the construction of staff houses for teachers, hospital personnel and others. The agency has also equipped the various sectors as described elsewhere in this report, thus enabling the key sectors of health, education, water and sanitation, fisheries, administration, and adult education to implement their activities with this additional support. Capacity building. It is noted that ICEIDA has spent considerable resources in capacity building and training for district government personnel at both Kalangala and Mangochi. While this has led to an increasing pool of skilled and well-exposed personnel for the various sectors, it might not address the constraints of performance of the district level service delivery organs over the long term. Some of the constraints noted at both sites are: human resource shortage, lack of basic skills and low motivations; logistical

35

constraints including low operating budgets and other material needs; and institutional constraints including vague procedures in procurement, planning, and financing. Below are some options based on MVP experience and some suggestions from the UNCDF report:

i. Direct training of local personnel, as has been done by ICEIDA in Kalangala. These efforts should definitely be stepped up. There is need for clarity on how much capacity building is to be expected. The capacity needs assessment and the capacity-building plan being finalized for Kalangala are good places to start; however, priority training requirements should both dictate the length and depth of the training, and seek partners with comparative advantages for complementarities.

ii. Refresher courses to explain manuals and procedures as well as incoming policy reform should continue, as is already happening in Kalangala with the education sector policy.

iii. Travel and personnel allowances as well as material support should be technically appropriate and within modest limits for sustainability

iv. ICEIDA, in partnership with the district or local government, should gradually establish and utilize the benefits of performance-based management, where sector funding arrangements are linked with performance targets and achievements

v. Information and communication systems to harness both downward and upward accountability are important.

For sustainability purposes, there is a need for a strategic human resources strategy developed jointly with the district government and geared towards ensuring adequate, better equipped and motivated staffing for all the sectors. The team proposes the following strategies:

i. Development of a home-grown pool of skilled personnel for the key sectors, especially education and health, through a dedicated scholarship fund. In addition to the skills building in the generic courses described, there is need to recruit a specific number of teachers, nurses, community health workers, midwives, and other personnel, to be groomed right from secondary school to college level. Evidence from a similar previous programme in education confirms that out of 10 teachers educated through funding from the Pentecostal church in the district, only one has left and all the others are all working in the district. Again, nurses trained through this programme have remained in the district.

ii. In Kalangala, ICEIDA has already made some strides in this direction and already commissioned a capacity-building plan for the district through the KDDP. This plan should be implemented. The local government should also contribute financially and take the lead in the implementation of the plan.

iii. For the health sector, there is also need to build a pool of community-level health assistants and other lower level health personnel who are well placed to deal with the preventive elements of the sector as well as family planning, immunization and health data collection. Such an intervention is easier to sustain than higher level personnel. Further, it is much easier to have a call-in doctor to manage the complicated cases such as surgery while the health personnel manage other more routine medical concerns.

36

iv. There is need for a comprehensive HR package negotiated with the local government to attract and retain staff. This includes the hardship top-ups which, although as a matter of principle ICEIDA does not support, the local government should take charge of in a complementary arrangement with ICEIDA. The MVP provides top-ups for staff in hospitals as well as other government-seconded staff, mainly to cater for added responsibilities that come with the project. Our recommendation is that ICEIDA is in a good position to negotiate for a strategic HR package to boost service delivery in both Kalangala and Mangochi.

4.6 Results measurement and impact assessment Results measurement is critical to the understanding of how well the organization’s strategy is working and whether the interventions are adding value to the lives of the people for whom they were intended. A results measurement framework would enable ICEIDA to assess the extent to which it is achieving its objectives, document and articulate successes and areas of improvement, and inculcate a system of implementation, learning and review across all sectors and cadres of the organization. Our review of the ICEIDA projects at both sites revealed that there is currently no ingrained results measurement strategy. The projects implemented are those identified jointly with the government. Indirect indicators of success are used. These include the statistics on staffing that have improved, indicating success with the construction of staff houses. The Malawi government report on progress of traditional authorities that indicates that Nankumba is ahead of all other rural TAs is an indicator of progress. Similarly, increased enrolment statistics, increased number of patients visiting the health facilities, including increased number of health personnel assisted deliveries, indicate success with the interventions. However, baseline studies have not been good and neither was benchmarking from the outset. There were attempts with the fisheries to get data, but this was not forthcoming due to poor data management. The water and sanitation project is using village committees to monitor effects of interventions but a strategic system is not in place. Other indicators are indirect, such as reduced loss of life off shore. In Uganda, a baseline study was undertaken at the beginning of the programme and the data collected used to form the verifiable indicators in the project documents. However there has not been a conscious results measurement process. The KDDP programme has no inbuilt results measurement. Until now the programme relies on the existing district information system which has received support so far from ICEIDA in terms of establishing systems. However, it is still not adequate and ICEIDA is struggling with whether to establish a more efficient system or to continue strengthening what exists. The district planner indicated that results measurement is currently quite poor and there is no monitoring and evaluation system in place. In terms of administration, this is highlighted as one of the areas that the administrative component of the ICEIDA, KDDP, can address and strengthen. The consultancy will propose a results measurement strategy. The KDDP log frame planning process has been well received due to its ease of monitoring processes and as a result, it has been extended to other planning programmes of the Kalangala district, that are outside the KDDP sectors.

37

Thus, without a designed results measurement and monitoring strategy, the team recommends the development of a results measurement framework designed for managing development results, assessing performance, providing information for decision making and for learning and sharing across the organization and among partners including government. Development agencies across the world find difficulty in attributing success in their area of operation to specific interventions of their organizations. This becomes even more difficult where other organizations are also operating albeit not necessarily in a partnership arrangement. The Paris Declaration on aid effectiveness is premised on the realization that it is a country’s own poverty reduction efforts that create success in meeting these objectives and thus partners can only contribute to or add value to these efforts. There is therefore a need to measure ICEIDA’s results by looking at its development projects as well as institutional effectiveness. Our proposed framework recognizes that the results under review and development outcomes at community level extend beyond the control of the organization. This is because they are a product of collective action by ICEIDA, the government and the community itself, over a stretch of time. Figure 3: Results measurement framework

Result indicator Commencement of project

In the course of implementation

At completion

Source of data

1.Achievement of results in ICEIDA’s sectoral intervention areas

Baselines MTR17 End term evaluation

Progress reports from all sectors

2.ICEIDA’s commitment to aid effectiveness and adherence to the five partnership commitments of the Paris Declaration18

_ _ _ Country-specific bilateral agreements

3.Effectiveness in ICEIDA’s strategic objectives19

_ _ _

_ _ Project status and evaluation reports

4.Extent to which the ICEIDA project achieves the first operational outcomes e.g. increased literacy, greater retention in primary schools, shorter distances to water access points, etc

Compare with MDG targets and indicators at district level

_ _ _ _ Project completion reports, and sectoral evaluation reports District level indicator systems

5.Level of innovation, scaling up and learning

Continuous documentation of outcomes

_ _ _ _ Project completion reports, and sectoral evaluation reports

6.Integration of elements of sustainability in all interventions

_ _ _ _ _ _ Project completion reports, and sectoral evaluation reports

This list of six indicators was derived from best practice of other organizations including the African Development Fund, IFAD, IFC and the International Development Association. We have selected them because they potentially provide a view of progress

17 Mid term review 18 The five partnership commitments of the Paris Declaration of Aid Effectiveness are: a. developing countries take leadership of their development agenda (ownership) b. donors base their support on countries’ own development strategies (alignment) c. donors coordinate their activities to minimize cost of delivering aid (harmonization) d. developing countries and donors direct their activities to achieving the desired results (managing for results) and e. mutual accountability between donors and developing countries in managing aid better and in achieving the desired results. 19 Extent to which the objectives of targeted development were achieved, or expect to be achieved

38

made in achieving development results. ICEIDA can easily match these with the required data, without the need for complex and costly data collection systems.

4.7 Institutional building, local governance and development In Malawi, ICEIDA has utilized the local-level structures right from the district level to the community level. The Traditional Authority has been used as the main entry point to community and to seek consent or community views regarding project prioritization. In Uganda, on the other hand, the local government has been used as the primary entry point, utilizing its various structures including local council III (LCIII) for local-level planning and prioritizing. Despite this, there is inadequate evidence of strong community ownership of the interventions and where present, such as in the community contribution of labour in Malawi, it is more to meet an immediate need, for example drilling a shallow well to access water, rather than a continued strategic development process that addresses integrated community needs as opposed to a one-off, needs-based project. Social funds are defined as ‘small community-managed projects that help to empower the poor and vulnerable’ (Social Funds Website, Social Protection Unit, February 2005). They present a viable model of community participation. Community-level capacity building is another important component of the community-level projects. As seen in the ICEIDA projects in Malawi, project committee members receive training and gain experience on the job, building skills in group dynamics, and in ‘bonding social capital’ (Vajja & White, 2006:20)20. All these increase community cohesion and a possibility for future community-based initiatives. Vajja et al also bring in the aspect of increasing ‘linking capital’, with regards to access to resources. Where community members have built sufficient capacity to identify resources they could use for local-level development, then the ‘linking’ of resources is gradually built, along with decision-making power and planning processes in partnership with local government. There is an opportunity for ICEIDA to focus efforts on deeper community-level capacities for sustainability of current processes. For instance, in Monkey Bay the head teacher of Nankwale Community day secondary school singlehandedly lobbied ICEIDA to support secondary school education as a component of the broader education sector support, a request that was clearly outside the bounds of the signed Work Plan. It took significant persistence from this individual, as well as linking efforts with the district government, to obtain resources from the ICEIDA pool. Where such individuals exist, this is social capital that needs further support so that other development partners in the district are able to respond to locally felt and pressing needs just as ICEIDA has. In addition to this, the District Assembly is a key organ of policy, development planning and political agenda setting at the district level. The equivalent is the local government (LCV) in Uganda, which should be an avenue to utilize the already significant strong position that ICEIDA has in both districts to influence certain agenda. This study has 20 Vajja, A & White, H, 2006. ‘Community Participation in Social Funds in Malawi and Zambia’. Q-Squared Working Paper No. 20. World Bank.

39

tried to encourage a gradual shift from infrastructural development to other support processes, especially in the cross-cutting issues of gender, environment and HIV/AIDs. Further, the MDG framework and targets provide a comprehensive set of indicators that are useful for monitoring progress at district level on these cross-cutting issues, thus keeping the district officers on their toes with regard to progress made. MDG-based planning at district level will be a useful premise to ensure continued net development and even greater impact if coupled with a solid community development strategy as proposed in the community development section below. For an effective district level approach, the following checklist should be applied:

i. The process is owned and led by the community. ii. There is adequate political will for achieving the goals that is translated into actionable

interventions. iii. Space and opportunities for civil society’s organizations and the private sector

engagement is available and supported. iv. The needs that the goals of the programme represent are defined and prioritized by the

community. v. Assessments are qualitative (as well as quantitative) with a focus in bringing real

transformation of livelihoods, and keen on directing the resources to the priority needs in an efficient way.

vi. Efforts to mainstream issues of gender, human rights and social inclusion are crucial if we are to achieve equity and equality.

vii. All stakeholders must be involved, and a partnership approach embraced, in win-win programmes especially with the private sector.

viii. Ensuring the centrality of aid coordination, fiscal decentralization and public-private partnerships, at the district government level; district-level capacity building is thus a crucial part of overall success

4.8 Community development The outlines in the Venn diagrams below show the communities’ perceptions of institutions around them in terms of relevance and importance in their lives;

40

Women’s Venn diagram in Kalangala

Men’s Venn diagram in Kalangala

Women’s Venn diagram in Mangochi

Men’s Venn diagram in Mangochi

There is a need to triangulate the participatory rapid appraisals findings of this study with a more comprehensive exercise. It was noted that in Malawi there is significant civil society voice in Mangochi, even relative to southern Malawi—not even a red cross marking a lack of adequate pressure groups. There is thus need to develop committees into civil society groups, well trained to undertake their ‘watchdog’ and advocacy roles. Reading circles appear to be good entry points for communication and behaviour change programmes. In integrating the projects, the study recommends entry via the village-level structures rather than the TA level. These include the water point committees, PTAs, HSAs, and health committees. To provide more lasting results, reorientation of committees should be less, and receivers of the projects converted to more and more active managers of development activities. Thus the adult literacy programme should be complemented with a component of capacity building in planning, information management, networking, advocacy, and monitoring that supports reach of the broader goals of the adult learning programme.

41

The ICEIDA project staff views the project as “largely a capacity building project with a focus on sensitization and training” while the Government of Malawi most strongly recognizes ICEIDA for the infrastructure brought to the district. The community on the other hand, recognizes the importance of ICEIDA largely through the free services and materials it has received. To obtain better results, ICEIDA can retain the TA as entry point but organize a leadership component where the TA shifts from sensitization and mobilization to facilitator of development processes. The water point committees are already taking a lead in sensitization processes in the community, being trained in management of water points, manage maintenance funds, and as part of monitoring effects of interventions. This was clearly reflected in the recognition of the water point committee in the women’s Venn diagram, as an institution that has an impact on their lives, which also overlapped largely with ICEIDA, demonstrating there is a good partnership and joint decision making.

5.0 Recommendations ICEIDA has made good progress and is held in high esteem in the two districts. The organization’s flexibility in handling emergency needs outside the boundaries of the project document was lauded by the respondents. There have been significant strides made in all major sectors, and similarities in approach with MVP, especially in the health and education sectors. There are differences in the sanitation and fisheries sectors and in others not emphasized by ICEIDA, such as agriculture, environment, enterprise development and ICT. It was noted that the MBCH was a great success in Malawi, and that MVP could learn from the hospital. There are significant investments in infrastructure, including: classrooms, hospital wards, rehabilitation of boreholes, staff houses in schools, hospitals, and community adult learning centres. Both countries have instituted policies on gender integration although this is not always visible in implementation. In Uganda, for example, there is a gender focal point for each district, responsible for ensuring gender integration in all sectors. Most of the country data is also gender disaggregated for all sectors, although not readily available due to inadequate capacity at the district planning departments in data management. In Malawi on the other hand, there is a National Gender Policy mandated to mainstream gender in all development policies, programmes, projects and activities, and to provide technical backstopping services to all stakeholders in the area of gender. It has representation right from the cabinet to the decentralized government levels. But due to inadequate funding and low capacities at the lower levels, gender integration during implementation becomes less visible. Based on the field visits and consultations with stakeholders, we have drawn the following conclusions and recommendations: 1. Sectoral based recommendations;

42

a. Strengthen the ‘software’ side of the sectors: the health policy support activities; integration of gender in the sectors; environment and soil management processes; community mobilization into organized citizenry for grassroots advocacy; a critical review of family planning strategies; results measurement and impact assessment including collection and analysis of gender-disaggregated data.

b. The project document should not be a limiting ‘box’, inflexible to the development

context. Rather, it should have space for adjustment as the sectoral interventions emerge. Thus the fisheries project document should be reviewed to encompass aspects of the sector that lead to higher incomes for the local fishing communities as well as the current focus of the sector. The education sector in Malawi was flexible enough to include secondary education and turned out to be a great success, and so should the other sectors. In Uganda, though KDDP does not focus on all sectors, government officers from other sectors have also been benefiting from resources such as internet connection and solar panels. In line with this, the project steering committee meetings could also be used to make adjustments based on emerging realities, and the project document should therefore be flexible enough within reasonable timeframes and budget lines.

c. Install a well designed and integrated gender-responsive programme that is not

separate but part of all other sectors. Gender inequalities in literacy, participation and social indicators, as observed in this report, point toward the glaring need for a strategic redress of gender concerns in the two ICEIDA programmes. To begin with, ICEIDA could designate an officer to ensure implementation and monitor progress of such a strategy. This does not necessarily call for hiring of an extra officer. However, all project personnel, irrespective of their focus area, should have sound knowledge of gender concerns and be able to implement them, leaving the designated officer with the role of monitoring the integration and providing other strategic guidance. The following outputs should be pursued in the next phase:

Strengthen opportunities for post-primary education for girls, through

scholarships in secondary schools, increasing gender-friendly sanitary infrastructure in schools, and strengthening school policies that allow adolescent mothers to continue with education

Invest in infrastructure that reduces the time burden on women and girls including low-cost energy technologies, reduced distance to water points, and access to ICT to provide enterprise options for women and men

Increase access to sexual and reproductive health rights and services and promote protection from HIV/AIDS

The ICEIDA Gender Equality Policy, paper no. 2 of 2004 already points towards a gender-responsive programming that should be embraced.

d. Below is a summary of sector specific recommendations from the two programme

sites: i. Health sector in Kalangala

43

Improvement of the outreach programme to be more frequent and to cover a bigger population

Strengthen the VHTs especially the Community Health Workers (CHWs) to provide services at the community level

Improve community participation in matters affecting health, so that the villagers play a more active role

Improve referral services by providing at least one fully equipped district hospital. ii. Health sector in Mangochi: ICEIDA should consider strengthening operations of HSAs by constructing more

outreach shelters and providing supplies Family planning for reducing the population growth rate should be expanded Address human resource management and capacity needs, in close partnership with

the local government ICEIDA should consider strengthening the capacity of the Mangochi DHMT to carry

out its mandate in the whole district; this includes supervision, planning and coordination.

iii. Fisheries sector in Kalangala and Mangochi: The study team recommends an entrepreneurial approach for the fisheries sector Support community mobilization for enterprise development and value chain

development. Explore provision of micro finances to fishing groups, and skills building in savings and credit schemes

Invest in small-scale mechanized fisheries infrastructure and scientific assessment of available fish stocks and their economic viability

Social impact assessment and environmental impact assessments and audits, including management of natural resources to conserve the environment around landing sites

Support value addition to fish catches before sale to boost local enterprise Support the district government to enforce fishing policies and regulations, including

a tax review of the sector. iv. Education sector in Kalangala and Mangochi • Increase attention to secondary education in a similar manner as primary education • Increase teacher motivation through payment of hardship allowances • Extend the sectoral support on broader sectoral development through better

information management systems, including data collection and analysis, gender integration, and continuous quality and relevance oversight

• A partnership approach in the education sector is encouraged and supported, for sustainability of the interventions by the district government and to pool resources

• Greater exploration with the school feeding programme modeled on the Sauri MVP model21, visited earlier by a team from KDDP.

21 In the Sauri Millennium Village in Kenya, farmers under the programme contribute 10% of their farm produce to the schools to support the school feeding programme. The rest is contributed from the school farm as well as direct project contribution. Children are also receive nutritional supplements through the programme.

44

v. Water and sanitation sector in Kalangala and Mangochi • Step up implementation of activities in the water and sanitation sector to address

pressing needs • An integrated approach in the water and sanitation sector and focus on water for

irrigation, especially for Mangochi • Expand to other TAs in the district and document the emerging lessons as learning

points for other partners on the water and sanitation sector. 2. Institutional building and community development

i. There is need for a strategic and well planned community development programme that seeks to draw in active participation and empower communities in project leadership for a truly transformational effect. In Malawi, the REFLECT circles are strategic entry points into communities on development issues outside the literacy programme itself. These include SRH, HIV/AIDS community response, gender integration, community-based environmental management, human rights training, and democratization and governance processes. The REFLECT, which is run at the VDC level in the case of Malawi, is thus a golden opportunity to build capacities at community levels on these development concerns.

ii. There is also need to nurture civil society and organized citizenry locally to drive the

development agenda from the community level. The REFLECT circles can provide a good starting point. However care should be taken not to establish structures that do not bring any change due to lack of resources and capacity to engage in local level advocacy for change and improved livelihoods. The community increasingly remains a ‘recipient’ of development and does not see itself as a participant in this development. This scenario needs to change and ICEIDA cannot do this alone. It should be a partnership between all key stakeholders in the district including the district assembly, other development agencies, local structures and TAs. Once this is done, the activities can be more demand-driven rather than the supply-driven.

Space for civil society organizations and the private sector engagement should be

expanded, so that the needs that the goals of the programme represent are defined and prioritized by the community

Political will for achieving these goals is a prerequisite for success Qualitative assessments should be done to reveal the level of livelihood

transformation in communities Mainstreaming of crosscutting themes of gender, human rights and social inclusion to

achieve equity and equality is crucial for cohesion and success. 3. Untapped potential i. Information technology (ICT) as a critical component of development needs to be highlighted. The Millennium Villages approach has integrated ICT infrastructure in all the sectors to ease marketing and information access in agriculture, computer and internet

45

literacy in schools, data management in hospitals, and community-based internet cafes at the information centres. ii. The study realizes that it is now time for ICEIDA to take a strategic outlook towards productive sectors, both to boost sustainability and in pursuit of greater community empowerment through production and enterprise. Investment in the agriculture and irrigation sectors that are yet to be fully tapped and utilized is a good place to start. Incentives for small-scale agricultural development could be modeled on the BIDCO22 approach in Uganda, and irrigation projects already in place supported by other agencies. Greater improvement of the fisheries sector, including value chain development and market development to ensure more money in the pockets of the fishing communities, should be pursued. Examples include the need to develop a fish processing plant at Kalangala to avoid reliance on the one at Kampala that requires additional transportation costs. While the FALP has increased the literacy levels of the fishing communities, there is still a lot that needs to be done in the fisheries sector to improve incomes for the population. There is a need to develop the tourism sector and secure tourist attractions such as unique bird species and the indigenous forests that provide the ecosystem for them. Other tourist packages should be developed to make Kalangala part of the tourism circuit in Uganda. In Mangochi, maize and fruits have been successfully grown with irrigation in the Monkey Bay peninsula, and this could be stepped up with greater support from ICEIDA in partnership with respective ministries to effectively guarantee an alternative livelihood source. Development of tourism at the Lake Malawi beaches by the government would create more revenue for the government and should be encouraged. ICEIDA could begin with the development of a business development plan for each district, after establishing viability of the various community-level enterprises among the sectors mentioned above. 4. Sustainability and scalability i. Partnership approach at district level. It was noted that there are many donors operating in Mangochi district. While the interventions by ICEIDA are clearly visible, it is not possible to establish a similar kind of infrastructure in the entire district, as has been done in the Nankumba area. Utilizing comparative advantage, ICEIDA could take benefit from the leadership position it enjoys in both Kalangala and Mangochi and stimulate such partnerships, including with the private sector. The strategic future outlook could thus be informed by reflecting on the following: Programming that is truly empowering, transformative and which improves

livelihoods Food security by the local economy in the absence of external support, by focusing on

both the social and productive sectors Sustainable development: can ongoing environmental practices sustain the

ecosystems for another decade? 22 In the BIDCO arrangement in Kalangala district in Uganda, about 3,500 farmers have been supported with inputs to be paid back with palm harvests at agreed rates.

46

Can current development interventions keep pace with the population explosion?

ii. Need to stimulate public private partnerships at the district level and beyond, to promote emerging enterprises and to increase investments in both the productive and social sectors. Investors should be encouraged to invest in existing opportunities such as animal husbandry, irrigation and expansion of the fishing sector. Others could invest in horticulture and tourism. This way some revenue will be ploughed back to the local government and some to social sectors, depending on how the public-private partnership is designed. Where communities are able to plough back resources into social services such as health, it enhances the collaborative efforts to service delivery between communities, local government and other partners, to commission an assessment of the viable productive sectors in close collaboration with the relevant ministries and district government departments, and gradually invest in this.

iii. Support to the CSOs in the districts where ICEIDA is operating, not just to play the roles above but also to complement ICEIDA’s own activities

5. Human Resources Development There is need for a human resources management and development package that builds a body of local professionals but also attracts and retains professional staff recruited by the central government. A low cadre of health personnel, from clinical officers downwards, should be given greater attention in this intervention. It has been tested before, and proved, that 90% of such professionals can be retained in the district. For example, primary school teachers and nurses in two previous trials funded by the Pentecostal church were quite successful. Besides the body of professionals, a few basic amenities should accompany the package, including access to solar or other energy sources, basic housing, operational equipment and hardship allowances. Similarly, there is need for a gradual shift from the short-term and individualized courses to a more strategic capacity-building programme based on institutional development needs for the district government. Thus the following should be considered: Development of a home-grown pool of skilled personnel for the key sectors

especially education and health, through a dedicated scholarship fund The capacity-building plan for Kalangala should be put in place, with local

government taking the lead in implementation and financial contribution For the health sector, there is also need to build a pool of community-level health

assistants and other lower-level health personnel well placed to deal with preventive health

Comprehensive human resource package negotiated with the local government to attract and retain staff should be installed.

6. Results measurement Results measurement tools are still not in place but the will is there to put in place an effective M & E system. The results measurement framework outlined in figure 3 above is recommended. Alignment with district-specific MDG targets and indicators will be the

47

beginning point in addition to rallying support for the district monitoring and evaluation officers, and their data and information management systems. ICEIDA’s results measurement strategy should tap the district systems and the two should remain mutually beneficial. The following is proposed for an improved impact and results measurement: Undertake a baseline survey derived from the social economic profiles and other

district level reviews already present in the districts Install a results measurement framework as informed by the output indicators from

the project documents Work closely with the monitoring and evaluation government personnel at both

districts Support establishment of a data management system in the districts in partnership

with the local government Designate an officer at each project site to ensure continuous results measurement and

documentation of emerging lessons and experiences. 7. Financing the interventions based on MDG priorities There should be a focus on ensuring the centrality of aid coordination, fiscal decentralization and public-private partnerships, at the district government level. Additional focus areas include; • Step up capacity building of local level institutions founded within the community as

sustainability strategy • Commence strategic interventions in the productive sectors, to boost local incomes;

this implies that more resources should increasingly be ploughed into production and creation of local incomes for the communities

• For both Mangochi and Kalangala, greater interventions in the enterprise side of the fisheries sector will increase local revenues.

• For Kalangala, the revenue enhancement plan for the local government should be finalized and implemented to boost local revenue collection by the local government.

8. District-level approach With regard to the approach to adoption, the district should remain the entry point. Priority sectors—education, health, water and sanitation—should be maintained. ICEIDA should also seek to have an impact within these sectors at both community and district levels, and gradually balance infrastructural development with support to sector policies, information management, alignment with MDG targets and indicators, and strengthening monitoring, evaluation and impact assessments. As mentioned above, there should be a balance between the social and the productive sectors. We also realize that despite all the progress made at both sites, there is still much to be done for there to be significant and sustainable impact. We thus propose that ICEIDA expand support to cover the entire districts of Kalangala and Mangochi. There is no need for immediate expansion outside these two. However, with the documentation of emerging lessons, ICEIDA could seek to inform national policy reform, and scale up its

48

knowledge to other areas, using national-level structures, such as the Project Supervisory Board, SWAp donor groups, and other national-level entities.

49

6.0 Annexes 6.1 The terms of reference for the review Introduction Initially, Iceland provided bilateral state-to-state development aid almost solely in the fishery sector. In a government resolution following an external evaluation of ICEIDA´s activities in 1997, a decision was made to place increased emphasis on new sectors, especially on social infrastructure and services such as health and education, at district level in the partner countries, as well as the fishery and energy sectors. In the year 2000, Iceland, as a member of the UN and signatory to the Millennium Development Declaration, pledged to work together with its partner countries towards the attainment of the MDGs. It was in that spirit that ICEIDA adopted the community development approach, first in Malawi and later on in Uganda. The decision was made in close cooperation with both central and local authorities. The possibilities of similar projects in Mozambique and Nicaragua are being explored.

This approach is based on working with very poor districts on establishing the infrastructure of the community with the participation of district authorities and village communities. The work is harmonized with the activities of other development agencies and NGOs providing assistance in the same sectors and areas. This support is multi-sectoral and focuses on infrastructure build-up, training and service delivery.

The United Nations’ Millennium Village Project is in many respects similar to the community development approach adopted by ICEIDA, where the objective is to strengthen the community as a whole. It is therefore likely that ICEIDA would benefit from the MVP experience.

ICEIDA´s intention is to develop further the concept of working at District level in a holistic way that addresses the basic needs of the population, linking up with their own District Development Plans and focusing on the attainment of the MDGs.

For that purpose ICEIDA is seeking the services of consultant to assess the project approaches used in Monkey Bay Zone in the Mangochi District in Malawi and in Kalangala District in Uganda and from that assessment come up with a concept/model that can be used in future projects of the same nature

The consultant is to supply the service outlined below to the Icelandic International Development Agency (ICEIDA). The consultant (s) is expected to: • Undertake literature review; • Undertake field visits to Malawi and Uganda; • Conduct consultative meetings with key stakeholders including government official at the district

level, target groups as well as with other development actors in the areas; • Analyze ICEIDA’s development model at district level and define indicators for future monitoring

accordingly; • Do a comparative study of ICEIDA´s Community Development Approach and the U.N Millennium

Village approach; • Make recommendations for improving the methodology used by ICEIDA based on the findings of the

comparative study; • Report over the findings and recommendations; • Conduct consultative seminar with ICEIDA´s field staff in Uganda and Malawi at the end of the field

visits; • Participate in consultative meetings as required when the report has been completed; • Visit ICEIDA´s Head Office in Reykjavik for interviews and briefing of draft report. Background The Community Development Approach in Malawi ICEIDA has worked with the Government of Malawi since 1989. Initially the co-operation focused mostly on the development of the fisheries sector. The Department of Fisheries is located in Monkey Bay in

50

Mangochi District; therefore a large part of ICEIDA’s activities in Malawi has been carried out in the Monkey Bay zone. The Agency has acquired substantial experience working in the area during this period and has developed strong relations with the District. The Community Development Approach was adopted in Malawi in 2000. Over half a million people live in Mangochi District and around one hundred thousand in the Monkey Bay zone alone, where the ICEIDA´s activities have been most extensive.

In Malawi the support is through a set of independent projects and special Project Documents (and agreements) for each project. The Agency provides support in following sectors: Health, Fisheries, Primary Education, Adult Literacy and Water and Sanitation. The co-operation is with five Ministries and the Ministry of Finance signs all financial commitments

The Objectives of the projects are to assist the Malawian government in its efforts to achieve the Millennium Development Goals and its national development goals of economic growth as laid down in the Malawi Growth and Development strategy. The Community Development Approach in Uganda In Uganda ICEIDA started working with the Ministry of Gender Labour and Social Development in 2002 supporting the Functional Adult Literacy Program (FALP) in Kalangala District. While the implementation of the FALP programme was ongoing, the district requested ICEIDA to expand the cooperation framework to other areas of service delivery outside the informal education sector.

Acting on a Memorandum presented by the Kalangala District Local Government to a delegation from Iceland led by the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Iceland in October 2003, it was agreed to extend the cooperation with the District.

The subsequent project that was developed is “Support to the Implementation of Kalangala District Development Program – KDDP”. The project is multi sectoral and falls under the DAC code 400, 43040, Multi Sector /Cross-Cutting, Rural Development. The line Ministry for the project in Uganda is the Ministry of Local Government. The overall objective of the Project is to “Contribute to Sustainable Livelihoods an Equitable Socio-economic Development in Uganda, particularity in Kalangala District.” The project is set within the framework of Uganda’s Poverty Eradication Action Plan (PEAP) which is the national instrument to achieve the Millennium Development Goals.

In this respect ICEIDA is supporting the District in the four sectors of Administration, Fisheries, Education and Health. Based on the Kalangala District Development Plan (DDP), the project seeks to backstop and fund activities in the DDP in these four sectors, where funding is not available or activities are under funded. Provision of funds: Strategies in the District projects/programme in Kalangala and Monkey Bay zone The ongoing projects in Malawi and Uganda have the similar overall aims but use a different approach in implementation.

In Malawi the support to Monkey Bay Zone in Mangochi District is through a set of independent projects covering: Health, Fisheries, Primary education, Adult Literacy and Water and Sanitation. The co-operation is with the five Ministries in question and the Ministry of Finance signs all financial commitments.

In Uganda the support to Kalangala District is through one project document that covers the sectors of Administration, Fisheries, Education and Health. The line Ministry for the project in Uganda is the Ministry of Local Government.

The implementation strategy in Monkey Bay zone is that the funds are channelled through ICEIDA structure parallel with the Local Government structures but the Local Government’s staff implements the projects. There is only one exception where the Education Office in Mangochi manages the funds provided by ICEIDA through designated bank account. ICEIDA has six support staff on the ground to work with government staff in the five projects (sectors) as well as ICEIDA Project Managers. The overall implementing period is different for different projects.

In Kalangala the implementation strategy is that the funds are channelled through the Local Government structures and their staff implements the project. ICEIDA has two support staff on the ground to work with

51

government staff in the four sectors, as well as a Project Manager and a Financial Controller. The overall implement period is ten years, and the first five years have been planned in detail.

The table below shows the District Projects cost. Projects Mangochi Malawi Timefr.

Real cost 2007 Total esti.cost

Local Iceida Staff

Expat ICEIDA

Year US$ US$ In Mangochi P.Manager

Monkey Bay Health Care 1999-2008 1.356.458 7.000.000 1,6 1 Adult Literacy (NALP) Nankumba 2001-2010 582.561 3.300.000 0,6 0,5 Primary school 2005-2009 549.856 2.880.000 0,6 0,5 Small scale offshore fishery 2005-2008 395.267 1.423.000 1,6 1 Water and Sanitation 2006 -2010 610.208 2.729.500 1,6 1

Totals 3.494.349 17.332.500 6 4

In Kalangala Projects Kalangala Uganda Kalangala District Development Pr. 2006-2015 735.016 7.000.000 3 2 FALP in Kalangala 2002-2010 147.000 1.262.820 1

Totals 882.017 8.262.820 4 2

Objectives of the Consultancy The main purpose of the consultancy is improving the current methodology through redesigning the model or come up with new concept/model for Multi Sectoral Community Development/District Development Projects that shall be based on the experiences from the two countries community development projects (Malawi and Uganda) and take in account the U.N. Millennium Village project practice The objectives of the exercise are following: • to lay ground for ICEIDA´s policymaking in the respective districts for the possible extension of

projects and greater harmonization and synergy between them. • to identify and define areas of action which would provide an opportunity to establish a more effective

development model and could be used as a blueprint by the Agency when designing such projects in the future

• to make ICEIDA´s community development approach correlate with the MDGs and reflect best practices gained through experience of the U.N. Millennium Village projects.

Attention shall be paid but not necessarily limited to the following questions:

ICEIDA District Approach: 1. How can the methodology be improved? 2. How can the indicators be redefined to make monitoring and management easier? 3. Is the support comprehensive enough to be meaningful for the districts? Should ICEIDA expand its

project to include new components of development aid in the districts? 4. Is it possible to use alternative approach to the existing one to fulfil the objectives 5. How can co-operation with civil society (NGOs) and research spending be included into the approach?

The consultancy should identify a range of options and make recommendations.

The consultancy will be used in following ways:

• To improve (or redesign) the development assistance model of ICEIDA in the respective districts and countries to make its approach more holistic in nature.

• As a guideline to establish new such projects, for further co-operation and development assistance in ICEIDA´s partner countries in poor villages and districts.

52

Scope and Focus of the Consultancy The consultant shall focus on providing information for ICEIDA. The recommendations will be regarded as guidelines for the future. The Consultant (s) shall focus on the structure and results aspect in ICEIDA´s Community Development Approach. The learning aspect is important and ICEIDA expects information and recommendations about how the approach can be more effective, how the results can be measured and how the model can be corrected having in mind the Millennium Development Goals and the experience gained from the Millennium Village project. The results of this consultancy and recommendations shall be regarded as guidelines for existing and future ICEIDA´s co-operation. Required Expertise The consultant (s) shall have a university education (Masters or Doctors degree) in the fields of social sciences (development studies, economy), as well as extensive knowledge of development work in planning and evaluation. Knowledge and experience of working with designing and monitoring the “United Nations Millennium Villages” is essential (and therefore also knowledge of consultative methods and grass-roots involvement). Fluency in the English language is required. Plan of Work and Timeframe Work should be carried out over 60 days

• 10 days literature review completion • 10 days in Malawi (field work, result sharing and writing) • 10 days in Uganda (field work result sharing and writing) • 20 days for data analysis and completion of written report • At least 4 days visit to Reykjavik/Iceland –Interviews and briefing of findings after the field work.

Tentative timeframe, the period 1st October – 15th of December 2008. In preparing the field work and the final report and recommendations, the consultant will cooperate closely with ICEIDA´s HQ, ICEIDA’s Country Directors in Malawi and Uganda, and ICEIDA’s Project Managers in Malawi and Uganda The consultant can hire 2 part time local research assistants for collecting information (one in each country), as agreed by ICEIDA. A written report with recommendations shall be submitted to ICEIDA´s HQ before December 15th. Relevant Literature:

1) GENERAL AGREEMENT on forms and Procedures for Development Co-operation between the partner countries and Iceland

2) Policy papers from ICEIDA and the PRS papers from the partner countries

3) Project documents and agreements of the ICEIDA supported projects in Mangochi and Kalangala:

Mangochi • Monkey Bay community Health Care • Support to the National Adult Literacy Programme in Traditional Authority Nankumba • Work-Plan Primary School MB • Small Scale Offshore Fishery Technology Development Project (SOFTDP) • Water and Sanitation project in Monkey Bay Health Zone Kalangala • Support to the Implementation of Kalangala District Development Programme KDDP Support to the

Implementation of Uganda FAPL in Kalangala • Evaluation reports and other relevant papers: • Evaluation of the Iceida Project Support to Monkey Bay Health Care 200-2007 By Dr.M.Murru, Dr.

W.K. MKadawire • Status reports, 2002 -2008, By Dr.G. Gunnlaugsson • ALP: Support to other National Adult Literacy Programme Monkey Bay 2001-2004, By. L.

Kamtengeni and Dr. K. Benediktsson

53

• ICEIDA support to the Implementation of FAPL in kalangala District 2002 -2005. By H. Árnason • Papers and documents regarding the Millennium Goals and their progress in the partner countries

(especially if available in the districts Kalangala and Mangochi).

54

6.2 List of stakeholders consulted Name Designation Place Dates Mr. Gisli Palsson (Social & Energy desk) Mr. Jo Tore Berg Ms. Agusta Gisladottir (fisheries) Mr. Gunnar Salvarsson (PR )

ICEIDA HQ team

Reykjavik, Iceland

23rd-24th

September 2008

Mr. Arni Helgason (Head of Mission) Ms. Drifa. Kristjansdottir (PM) Ms. Lijla Kolbeinsdottir (PM)

ICEIDA Uganda senior Project team Kampala 21.10.2008

Mr. Benjamin Kumumanya Principal Assistant Secretary, MoLG Kampala 22.10.2008 Ms. Oliver Hope Nakyanzi Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) Kalangala 23. 10.2008 Mr. Kasirye Samuel District Plannner Kalangala 23.10.2008 Dr. Hilary Bitakalamire District Health Officer Kalangala 23.10.2008 Ms. Florence Bbosa District Education Officer Kalangala 24.10.2008 Mr. David Kikoola District/LC5 Chairperson Kalangala 24.10.2008 Mr. Julius Mukasa District Secretary for Health and

Education Kalangala 24.10.2008

Ms. Lydia Kizza District/LC5 V.Chairperson, Secretary for Production and Natural Resources

Kalangala 24.10.2008

Mr. Martin Lugambwa District Secretary of Finance and Administration

Kalangala 24.10.2008

Mr. Kizito Mukasa Fred Dep. CAO Kalangala 24.10.2008 Mr. Twikirize Ben Mr. James Kayizzi

Project Officers, KDDP ICEIDA Kalangala 24.10.2008

Mr. Mbareeba Jack Wycliffe Deputy Fisheries Officer Kalangala 24.10.2008 Mr. Baleemeezi Fredrick Assistant CAO Kalangala 24.10.2008 Beach Management Unit members; Chairperson, treasurer, representatives from fisherfolk)

Others present, LCIII and LCI, chairpersons. Approx. 60 community members 35M: 25F

Namusoke at Bubeke Islands

27.10.2008

Mr. Zephania Kamanyiro BMU official; facilitator and treasurer

Namusoke landing site

27.10.2008

Mr. Balironda David District Production and Marketing Officer

Kalangala 28.10.2008

KADINGO, KAFOPHAN, Lujjabwa W.G CSOs supported under KDDP Kalangala 27.10.2008 Mr. Stefan Jon Hafstein (Country Director) Mr. Stefan Kristmannsson (PM-SOFTDP) Dr. Gudbrandur Thorkelsson (PM-Health) Mr. George Manjolo (PC/Principal Clinical Superintendent-MBCH) Ms. Stella Samuelsdottir (PM-ALP) Inga Dora Petursdottir (Administrative Coordinator)

ICEIDA team at Malawi Country office

Lilongwe country office

04.11.2008

Dr. Ann Phooya Head of SWAP secretariat, MOH Lilongwe 04.11.2008 Mr. Orton Kachinjika Chief Fisheries officer, Ministry of

Agriculture and Food security (MoAFS) Lilongwe 05.11.2008

Dr. Steve Donda Deputy Director of Fisheries, MoAFS Lilongwe 05.11.2008 Mr. Maurice Makuwila (MoAFS) Assistant Chief Fisheries officer 05.11.2008 Mr Aubrey Sambani (MoAFS) Economist 05.11.2008 Mr. Boniface Gondwe Director of Water Supply and Sanitation Lilongwe 05.11.2008

55

56

Mr. Zeru Mwandira (MoWCD) Snr Community Development Officer (CDO)

Lilongwe 05.11.2008

Mr Abson Mpunga Chief CDO Lilongwe 05.11.2008 Ms. Juliet Kamanga Principal CDO Lilongwe 05.11.2008 Mr. Glumur Baldvinsson (PM-Water and Sanitation) Mr. Levi Soko (PC-ALP) Mr. Harold Pondeponde (District Irrigation and Water Development Officer) Ms. Mary Makande (Field operations)

ICEIDA team at the Monkey Bay office

Monkey Bay 06.11.2008

Mr. Fredrick Kapinga (MBCH) Hospital in-charge Monkey Bay 06.11.2008 Mr. Jackson Gumbala Head Teacher, Namazizi Local

Educational Authority (primary) Monkey Bay 07.11.2008

Mr. Emmanuel Bisayi Head Teacher, Nankwale community day secondary school

Monkey Bay 07.11.2008

Mr. Moffat Chisali Nurse, Malembo health Clinic (HC) CHAM

Monkey Bay 07.11.2008

Mr. Mike Besten Medical assistant, Malembo HC Monkey Bay 07.11.2008 Mr. Levison Fulundiwe Fisheries Project Assistant Monkey Bay 07.11.2008 Mr. Francis Tembo, ICEIDA Project Coordinator, SOFTDP Monkey Bay 07.11.2008 Mr. Geoffrey Kanyesese Officer in charge, Dept of Fisheries Monkey Bay 07.11.2008 Dr. Moses Banda Chief Fisheries Officer/Research

Coordinator, Dept of Fisheries Monkey Bay 07.11.2008

Mr. Fosco Madzedze Chair, Madzedze Beach Village Committee (BVC)

Monkey Bay 07.11.2008

TA Nankumba and his team of 8 headmen and TA secretary

Monkey Bay 10.11.2008

Joseph Maseya (ACDO), Dominic Chilambala (CDA), Allan Chirubani (CDA)

Assistant CDO and some CDAs, from Monkey Bay constituency

Monkey Bay 10.11.2008

Headman Katole, and the Katole learning Circle (30 learners)

Learners, facilitator/instructor and local village headman; male circle facilitator

Monkey Bay 10.11.2008

Headman Kholowere, and the Kholowere learning circle (24 learners)

Learners, facilitator/instructor and local village headman; female circle facilitator

Monkey Bay 10.11.2008

Mr. Chirwa District Commissioner, Mangochi Mangochi 11.11.2008 Mr. Mughogho Director of planning and

development, Mangochi Mangochi 11.11.2008

Mr. Henry Chimbereko District community development officer

Mangochi 11.11.2008

Mrs. Rose Kamwachale District Education Manager Mangochi 11.11.2008 Dr. Mulenga & Dr. Andrew Likaka District Health Officer and Medical

officer for Mangochi district hospital, respectively

Mangochi 11.11.2008

Mr. Hassan Maluwa Deputy Water Officer Mangochi 11.11.2008 Representatives from village sectoral committees

Community representatives for FGDs Monkey Bay 12.11.2008

6.3.1 The information gathering tool Uganda Sector Respondent/Consulted teams Information required 1. Education District Education sector

managers Head teachers FALP and REFLECT groups participants, PTAs, and

To what extent have the relevant village education bodies been included in the planning and implementation of the primary, secondary, FALP and REFLECT? What benefits have you received via the KDDP education program? Level of infrastructure and sector policy support What roles and responsibilities do the PTAs have in the project?

2. Health District Health officer Hospital administration Village health committees LC 3 Officers and village level Community Leaders and Key Informants, VHT ( village health teams)

• Which health interventions are being carried out with support of ICEIDA? • What are the main health problems in the areas? • How were the interventions selected? • Were the MDG recommendations considered in selecting the interventions? • What level of per capita investment goes to health? • Has the health program been evaluated before and if YES, what were the key highlights

of the evaluation report? • Does ICEIDA work with any other partners in the health sector in Kalangala? • Any linkages between health interventions and other sectoral interventions? • What are the major challenges is the project facing? • What organizational structures existed at the community level prior to the project? • How did the community come to be involved in the health project? • What new organizations have been created by the KDDP project? • How have these organizations or their members benefited from the project?

3. Fisheries District Fisheries officer- PMT BVC and BMU representatives Landing site officials LC 3 Officers and village level

• What activities does ICEIDA support in the sector? • What level of investment is involved? • Any progress made so far? • What are the major challenges facing the sector? • Are there any interventions targeting improvement of marketing and value addition? • Any interventions to help fishermen with knowledge on savings and investments? • Any interventions to link the fishermen to formal banking services? • Do you have any linkages or memberships to national or regional fisheries associations?

IF yes, benefits? Who facilitated? How long? Etc. • Are fishermen organized in any way? Were you organized differently before the project

started? • What roles and responsibilities do the BMUs have? • To what extent has the project strengthened the organization of fisherman?

57

Community Leaders and Key Informants, BMUs,

• What benefits have you gained from this organization?

4. Local Government/District level

1. MoLG- ICEIDA counterpart

2. Kalangala District Technical Team

3. District executive team in Malawi

4. Chief Administrative officer

5. Programme Implementation team

6. Local Council 3 (LC3) 7. LC 3 Officers and village

level Community Leaders and Key Informants

8. Traditional Authorities in Mangochi

• To what extent is the ‘Millennium Communities project’ integrated within national and local government policy and plans?

• Extent to which recommendations from previous meetings have been adopted to inform subsequent implementation

• What criteria were used to select the districts for each country? • What is the level of spending per MDG sector in the Millennium Communities • Decentralized management; to what extent are communities engaged in decision making

on spending, project design, and implementation and monitoring and evaluation? • What is the level of partnership with the local government and other governance

institutions? • With the financing, what is the effect of the finance streaming (via designated accounts

and as part of mainstream local government) in respective districts? And as compared with MVP approach?

• Reflect on target population per project area, vis a viz spending, sustainability and scaling up.

• Added value by ICEIDA projects • Other priority areas where ICEIDA can explore?

Community Development

1. District Community Development Officer

2. CDAs 3. Parish Committees (LC

II) 4. Village Committees (LC

I) 5. VDCs

• to what extent are communities engaged in decision making on spending, project design, and implementation and monitoring and evaluation?

• What capacity building activities are part of the KDDP program? • To what extent are you aware of community priorities in other that are not currently

addressed under the current KDDP program?(such as enterprise, environment, forestry, • To what extent do you feel the current KDDP program addresses the priority needs of the

community? • What are the gaps in addressing the priorities, if any? • To what extent have you been involved in the development of village action plans and

their consolidation and integration to the sub-county and district development plans? 5. Civil

Society 1. NGOs funded by ICEIDA 2. Community representatives 3. Organized community groups

• To what extent is the civil society engaged in the implementation of the project • Relevance of the KDDP programme viz a viz local needs • Level of partnership with ICEIDA, and with other development agencies. • Added value by ICEIDA projects • Other priority areas where ICEIDA can explore?

6. Private Sector (PS)

Private sector organizations and fisher-folk cooperatives

• To what extent is the partnership with the private sector • What opportunities for private sector development exist in Kalangala • What untapped PS opportunities exist in the Kalangala area in the areas of Fisheries and

58

59

other sectors where ICEIDA has intervened 7. Internal ICEIDA Country Director

ICEIDA Programme Staff (Project Implementation

Team) KDDP field staff Project Managers and coordinators of the ICEIDA Malawi programme

• How was Kalangala district selected for the ICEIDA project? Who was consulted? • Any baselines done to date? • What or who informs programme design • What is the level of institutional development targeted by the project? • How is the capacity building component integrated in the projects? • How does ICEIDA’s development model compare with the MVP model in terms of;

strategic approach, inputs (costs and personnel), geographical location, ICT development • What interventions are in place to secure sustainability of the interventions after the

stipulated project time frame? • What are the scaling up options from the selected communities and districts? • Are all the separate projects per district targeting the same community groups or

separate? • How is the budget distribution in percentage of totals and per sector? E.g adm, project,

education, fisheries etc 8. Policy

alignment MDG framework National Development Plans; Poverty Eradication Action Plan (PEAP)/ Malawi Growth and Development Strategy (MGDS) Decentralization model

• To what extent is the current programme aligned with the PEAP and other national development plans and policies?

• What are the current development priorities for the district and the country, any different from when the ICEIDA project started?

• To what extent is the ICEIDA project aligned with the MDG targets and indicators • To what extent has the project tapped from the decentralization model for sustainability • What is the national MDG /anti-poverty projects scale up plan? • To what extent is the ICEIDA programme aligned with this plan?

9. Results/impact measurement

Community Leaders ICEIDA project implementation staff District Planning Officers District M&E officers

• What are the current instruments for monitoring and evaluation? • Who is responsible for M&E in the project (data collection, reporting,) • Who are the stakeholders that receive the reports? • To what extent are the project’s indicators aligned with the PEAP/MGDS and

national sector indicators for purposes of contributing to achieving national policy goals?

• Do you keep records of your activities? • How do you know when your organization has succeeded in reaching its goals

and objectives? • To what extent were you involved in the selection of the measure of success for

the project? • Do you hold yourselves, or are you invited to evaluation sessions, for instance,

to reflect on achievements and challenges, or to jointly provide feedback to the project officers?

6.3.2 Venn diagram Protocol 1. Explain the Purpose Today we would like to do an activity that involves your full participation and leadership in drawing, discussion, and decision-making. We are going to do an activity called Venn (or Chapati) Diagrams. The Venn (Chapati) Diagram is a tool that helps us to learn about the importance of local groups and who has decision-making roles. It is also helpful for learning about the linkages between groups you may be members of and other groups you work together with, or groups that affect your decisions. Ask for any questions at this stage? Objectives: • To find out how the community is organized among themselves

• To find out how the community is organized to work with organizations from without their village

• List of organizations present

2. Follow the steps of the Process Organize focus groups of women and men, including a mix of socioeconomic groups, the poorest and most disadvantaged. The activity will trace the Venn diagrams on the ground. One team member will facilitate, one team member will record the discussion and main points as well as make observations, and one team member will transfer the diagram from the ground to paper in an exact reproduction (make sure to include a key for any symbols, the date and names of participants and gender). Start by asking the participants to list the local groups and organizations, as well as outside institutions, that are most important to them. For example, schools, parents associations, youth groups, Parish Council, Fisheries Extension Officer, etc. Then, ask the participants to decide whether each organization deserves a small, medium or large circle (to represent its relative importance). The recorder should document the discussion on the criteria that determines the importance of the different institutions. The name (or symbol) of each organization should be indicated on each circle. Next, ask which groups or organizations work together or have overlapping memberships. The circles should be placed as follows: • separate circles = no contact • touching circles = information passes between institutions • small overlap = some co-operation in decision making • large overlap = a lot of co-operation in decision making Discuss as many institutions as possible and ask the participants to position them in relation to each other. There may be a lot of debate and redrawing of the circles until consensus is reached. Make sure the participants understand each step of the process by asking and answering any questions. 3. Materials Sticks or other locally available materials for tracing in the sand. Large notebook paper for transfer of the diagrams.

60

4. Questions to Ask While Facilitating

i. Are there local groups organized around environmental issues? e.g. forest users group, water users group.

ii. Are there local groups organized around economic issues? e.g. credit, agriculture production.

iii. Are there local groups organized around social issues? e.g. health, literacy, religion.

iv. What are the links between local groups or organizations and outside institutions? e.g. NGOs, political parties, government institutions.

v. In what ways are the different participants satisfied or dissatisfied with the groups or institutions available to them?

vi. How does each institution relate differently to different members or groups of the village?

vii. Are any of the circles that are not touching, ie. no contact, have past conflicts, or if never had contact would benefit from working together?

viii. In the circles that are touching where information is passed, what type of information and which direction?

ix. In the circles that overlap, is this the right amount of co-operation in decision-making? Does one group have more decision-making power than it should? What could be a solution to this imbalance?

x. Are there groups from which certain kinds of people are excluded (e.g. women, poor, etc.)? Which ones? Why? What do the women lose due to their lack of participation?

xi. Are there groups exclusively for women? If so, what is the focus of these groups? What do women gain from them?

xii. Are the poor excluded from any of the local groups? Which ones? Why? What do the poor lose due to their lack of participation?

* Adapted from SEAGA Field Handbook. FAO.

61

7. References Bibliography Alphabeta Project Consultants, 2008 (forth coming) ‘Draft Kalangala District Local Government Capacity Building Plan’. KDDP/ICEIDA Berg, Jo Tore, 2008 ‘We are on Development’ Discourses and Lived Experiences of the ICEIDA-supported NALP in Malawi. University of Iceland. Buse et al, 2008. Beyond the village: The transition from rural investments to national plans to reach the MDGs. ODI. DAC (2006) ‘Quality Evaluation Standards’. siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTGLOREGPARPRO/Resources/DACEvaluationQualityStandards.pdf Government of Malawi (GOM), 2005. Malawi Growth and Development Strategy. Ministry of Finance. GOM, 2007. The 2007 Malawi Millennium Development Goal Report. Ministry of Economic Planning and Development. Lilongwe, Malawi. GOM/ICEIDA, 2008 ‘Small Scale Offshore Fishery Technology Development Project; Progress Report presented to the PSB in November 2008’. GOM/ICEIDA, 2006 ‘Water and Sanitation Project in Monkey Bay Health Zone’, Mangochi District, Malawi. Project Document November 2006. Government of Uganda, 2006. Decentralization Policy Strategic Framework. Ministry of Ministry of Local Government. Kampala Uganda. GoU, 2006. Local Government Sector Investment Plan. Ministry of Local Government. Kampala Uganda. GoU, 2004. Poverty Eradication Action Plan. Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development. GoU/UNDP, 2007. Millennium Development Goals, Uganda Progress Report (2007). Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development. Kampala, Uganda. High Level Event, 2005. Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness; Joint Progress towards Enhanced Aid Effectiveness. ICEIDA, 2008. ICEIDA’s Support to Primary Education in Mangochi District, 2005-2007. Report by Petursdottir, I and Samuelsdottir, S. Malawi, Lilongwe ICEIDA, 2008. ICEIDA’s Support to National Adult Literacy Programme in TA Nankumba area in Mangochi District, January-August 2008. Malawi, Lilongwe ICEIDA, 2008. On Development. Periodical, 22nd year 1st issue, September 2008. ICEIDA. Reykjavik. ICEIDA, 2007. Bi Annual Report January-June 2007. Lilongwe. Malawi ICEIDA, 2007. Annual report. ICEIDA. Reykjavik. ICEIDA, 2007. On Development. Periodical, 21st year 1st issue, July 2007. ICEIDA. Reykjavik.

62

ICEIDA, 2006. Annual report. ICEIDA. Reykjavik. ICEIDA, 2005. ICEIDA’s Support to the Implementation of FALP in Kalangala District, 2002-2005. External Evaluation Report by Arnason, H and Mabuya, M. ICEIDA, 2005. ICEIDA’s Gender Equality Policy. Policy No. 2. August 2004. Reykjavik. ICEIDA, 2004. Support to the National Adult Literacy Programme at Monkey Bay, 2001-2004, External Evaluation Report by Benediktsson, K and Kamtengeni, L. ICEIDA, 2004. ICEIDA’s Policy and Plan of Operations. Policy Paper No. 1. ICEIDA. Reykjavik. Kalangala District Local Government, 2008. District Development Plan; 2008/09 – 2010/11. Kalangala, Uganda. Iceland Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2005. Iceland’s Policy on Development Cooperation 2005-2009. MOFA. Reykjavik. ICEIDA, 2008. Bi Annual Report January-August 2008. Lilongwe. Malawi Institute of Statistics and Applied Economics of Makerere University, 2008 (forth coming). ‘Draft Baseline Surveys in the five Model Fishing Villages in Kalangala District’. KDDP/ICEIDA Kalangala District Local Government, 2008. Three Year District Development Plan, 2008/09-2010/11. Kalangala, Uganda. Mangochi District Assembly, 2008. District Social Economic Profile. Mangochi. Mangochi District Assembly, 2008. District Development Plan 2008. Mangochi. Mangochi District Assembly, 2008. District Education Plan 2008. Mangochi. MDG Africa Steering Group, 2008. ‘Achieving the Millennium Development Goals in Africa. Recommendations of the MDG Africa Steering Group, June 2008’ UN. New York. OECD/DAC (2004) Lessons Leaarned on Donor Support to Decentralization and Local Governance. OHCHR, 2008. Claiming the Millennium Development Goals: A Human Rights Approach. United Nations. Geneva. Sanchez, Pedro et al (2007) ‘The African Millennium Villages’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104 (43): 16775-80. The Earth Institute, Millennium Promise and UNDP, 2008.’ Millennium Villages Handbook: A Practitioners Guide to the Millennium Villages’, New York. The Earth Institute, 2007. ‘Millennium Villages: Concepts, Sustainability and Scalability’. MDG Team, Draft. The Earth Institute (2007) Millennium Villages: Concepts, Sustainability, and Scalability’. MDG Team (unpublished draft) UNCDF, 2006. Delivering the Goods; Local Government Cpacity to Achieve the MDGs. UNCDF New York UN Millennium Project (2005) ‘Investing in Development: A Practical Plan to Achieve the Millennium Development Goals.’ UN Report to the Secretary-General. New York: UNDP.

63

Vajja, A & White, H, 2006. ‘Community Participation in Social Funds in Malawi and Zambia’. Q-Squared Working Paper No. 20. World Bank. Wanjiku et al., 2008 (forth coming). Up scaling MDGs in Kenya: a joint Synthesis of Lessons from Sauri and Dertu MVP. MDG Centre, ESA. Wanjiku, M., 2008. ‘Overview of MDG interventions in Eastern and Southern Africa’. SNV ESA/MDG Centre. Nairobi, Kenya. Draft. Wood, B et al, 2008. ‘Synthesis Report on the First Phase of the Evaluation of the Implementation of the Paris Declaration’, Copenhagen. Denmark. World Bank, 2007. World Development Report 2008: Agriculture for Rural Development. Washington DC, World Bank. Web resources and references; http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/eval/pubs/RMAF-CGRR/rmafcgrr08_e.asp http://www.mdg-gateway.org/MDG-Good-Practices/September%202008.pdfhttp://www.odi.org.uk/resources/odi-publications/opinions/109-sanitation-MDGs-politics-poverty.pdfhttp://mdgs.un.org/unsd/mdg/Resources/Static/Products/Progress2008/MDG_Report_2008_En.pdfhttp://www.btcctb.org/showpage.asp?iPageID=359&sLangCode=EN http://amg.um.dk/en/servicemenu/Glossary/Glossary.htm#basketfundinghttp://amg.um.dk/CMS.Web/Templates/ http://www.unevoc.unesco.org/donors/background/trends.htmhttp://www.minbuza.nl/binaries/en-pdf/iob-evaluatie/rapporten/final-report-301.pdf. http://www.ifc.org/ifcext/devresultsinvestments.nsf/Content/DOTShttp://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/EXTABOUTUS/IDA/ http://www.accrahlf.net http://www.finance.go.ug http://www.uncdf.org/english/local_development/index.php http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/46/60/30395116.pdfhttp://www.sdnp.org.mw/~ettah/gender/chapter2.htm#IMPLEMENTATION%20STRUCTURE%20FOR%20THE%20GENDER%20POLICY i http://www.unevoc.unesco.org/donors/background/trends.htm

64